In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-1334, Michael David Williams appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for one count but reversed the other, instructing that charge be dismissed. One member of the court dissented. Michael David Williams was charged with two counts of misdemeanor Domestic Abuse after incidents involving his wife. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for both counts, though one fine was not imposed. Williams claimed errors in the trial regarding witness statements, insufficient evidence for his conviction, and misconduct by the prosecution. During the trial, Williams' wife testified that no abuse had occurred and that injuries she had were due to a fight with her aunt and an accident. However, earlier police statements made by her during investigations indicated otherwise. Williams argued the trial court should not have allowed these statements without proper instruction on how the jury could use them. The court noted that it could allow witness statements to be used for impeachment purposes, even if the witness didn't fully recall making them. However, the court found that the jury might have been misled about how to use those statements in one of the cases, leading to confusion regarding the evidence of guilt. The court affirmed Williams' conviction for the first case, where there was a lot of strong evidence against him, including police testimony and photographs of the scene. However, for the second case, the court ruled that the evidence presented was not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They decided to reverse this conviction and ordered it to be dismissed. In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction for the first incident but reversed the second due to insufficient evidence and errors in how the trial was conducted.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment.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.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-191, Hurst appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hurst's sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Hurst was found guilty of a crime involving inappropriate touching, which led to a sentence of 13 years in prison. Hurst raised four main arguments for his appeal: 1. He claimed the trial court did not give proper instructions to the jury, which made it unfair for him. 2. He argued that some evidence used against him in court was obtained in an illegal way, violating his rights. 3. He said that his attorney was not allowed to talk about certain things during closing arguments, which hurt his defense. 4. He believed that all these errors combined made his trial unfair. The court looked closely at all parts of the case, including the trial records and evidence. They found that Hurst deserved to have a new sentence because the jury had not been properly instructed, particularly about how much time they could decide to give him. This was his first offense and he should have been warned about the sentencing rules. The jury had asked for help with the sentencing, which meant they might have been confused. As for the other arguments, the court decided there weren’t any mistakes that would change the result of the case, like the refusal to give instruction on eyewitness identification or the claims about the way evidence was gathered. The court also agreed that the trial judge was right in limiting what Hurst's attorney could say during closing arguments. In summary, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing where the jury would be properly instructed.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.
In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1283, Marion Whitmore appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) After Two or More Prior Convictions, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for possession of methamphetamine from sixty-five years to thirty-five years. One judge dissented, arguing that the original sentence should not have been modified as any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-430, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. William Antwyoe Watson was accused of killing Steven Roberson, but Watson argued he acted in self-defense. The jury had found him guilty of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced him to four years in prison. Watson believed he was defending himself when Roberson attacked him in his home. The appeals court looked carefully at the evidence and found that Watson had been attacked earlier that evening. Roberson had entered Watson's apartment unlawfully and threatened him. The court decided that the state did not prove Watson was not acting in self-defense when he used a knife to protect himself. Therefore, they believed he should be found not guilty. Because of this, the court reversed Watson's conviction and said the case should be dismissed. The issues raised by Watson regarding the trial were no longer needed to be discussed, as the main decision was significant enough. In summary, the court concluded that Watson's actions were justifiable based on the circumstances he faced, and they reversed his conviction for manslaughter.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-576, Jimmy Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Phillips was found guilty after a trial in the Rogers County District Court. The jury recommended that he serve a total of 34 years in prison—12 years for the first count and 22 years for the second count. Phillips argued that he did not get a fair trial because of inappropriate remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court examined the entire case, including records and evidence presented. They agreed that some comments made by the prosecutor were improper and potentially harmful. For example, the prosecutor suggested his personal belief in the case and made remarks that tied the actions to a divine judgment, which the court found inappropriate. Despite recognizing these issues, the court concluded that they did not warrant a complete reversal of the convictions. Instead, they determined that Phillips’ sentences should run concurrently, meaning he would serve the time at the same time rather than back-to-back. This decision aimed to address the improper comments while still upholding the jury's verdict.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1145, James Lee Wiggins appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to eight years of imprisonment instead of ten. One judge dissented. Wiggins was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of ten years for concealing stolen property after having prior felony convictions. He raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that evidence of his past crimes unfairly influenced the jury and that improper comments during his trial led to an inflated sentence. Additionally, he stated that his case should be sent back to change the judgment so he could receive credit for the time he had already served. Lastly, he claimed that all these errors together made his trial unfair. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that some errors occurred, particularly regarding how the prosecution questioned Wiggins about his past prison time. However, they believed that these mistakes did not change the verdict of guilty. They also confirmed that he should receive credit for the time served due to a clerical error in his judgment. In the end, Wiggins' conviction was maintained, but the court reduced his sentence and directed the trial court to correct the judgment to ensure he received credit for the time he served.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-962, Chester Creller, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Incest. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy but reversed the conviction for Incest. One judge dissented. Creller was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses in a trial in Muskogee County. The jury decided on heavy punishments for the crimes: 100 years for Rape, 20 years for Oral Sodomy, and 10 years for Incest. The judge planned for the sentences for Rape and Oral Sodomy to be served one after the other, while the Incest sentence would happen at the same time as the Rape sentence. Creller took his case to a higher court, arguing several points. He claimed that the court should not have tried his case, that changes made to the case were unfair, that there were problems with how the victim's testimony was used, that he should not have been convicted of both Rape and Incest for the same act, and that the way evidence was handled did not guarantee him a fair trial. The higher court carefully looked over all the arguments and decided that Creller's claim about his convictions for Rape and Incest being based on the same action was valid. Therefore, they overturned the Incest conviction but found that the other points he raised did not change the overall outcome. The court confirmed that the trial was handled correctly in most ways and said that even though there were some mistakes, they did not affect the right decision because there was strong evidence against Creller. The decision also stated that the prosecution's closing arguments did not unfairly influence the jury because the defense did not object during the trial. In summary, Creller's sentence for Incest was dismissed, but he still faced very long sentences for the other charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-278, Kirk appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon were affirmed, while the conviction for Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Kirk was found guilty after an incident on January 24, 2000, where he lived with Reva Gail Sweetin. That night, Kirk's friend, Billy Whiting, visited them. After drinking alcohol, Whiting became very drunk and fell off the couch multiple times. Sweetin tried to help him, but Kirk later emerged with a knife and attacked both Sweetin and Whiting, ultimately fatally stabbing Whiting. Kirk raised several arguments during his appeal. First, he claimed the evidence was not enough to support his convictions, arguing that the witnesses who testified against him were not credible. However, the court found that the evidence supported the jury's decision. Second, Kirk argued that being convicted of both Domestic Abuse and Assault and Battery was unfair because both were for the same action. The court agreed with this point and decided to dismiss the Domestic Abuse conviction. Kirk also claimed that the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for Sweetin's credibility during closing arguments. The court concluded that these comments did not indicate the prosecutor's personal opinion but were a response to the defense's arguments. Another concern raised by Kirk was about other crimes evidence that the prosecutor brought up regarding his ex-wife, but the court determined that the jury was properly instructed to disregard it. Kirk argued that he should have received instructions about the witness's past bad acts. While the court agreed this was a mistake, they believed it did not significantly affect the trial's outcome due to the strong evidence against him. Lastly, Kirk claimed the overall errors during the trial were enough to warrant a new trial. However, since the court had already determined that one of his convictions should be reversed, they found there were no additional grounds for relief. In summary, the court upheld the murder and assault convictions, dismissed the domestic abuse charge, ensuring a focus on the primary acts Kirk committed during the incident.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-264, Gavin Lee Hawkins appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for one count and modify the sentence for the other count. One judge dissented. Gavin Lee Hawkins was found guilty of two counts of lewd molestation in Grady County. The jury sentenced him to serve ten years for the first count and twenty years for the second count, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Hawkins appealed, raising several issues he believed were errors that affected his trial. First, Hawkins argued that the prosecutor made a mistake during her closing arguments, which he thought was serious enough to affect the outcome of the case. The court agreed that the closing argument was improper and decided to change the twenty-year sentence for the second count to ten years. Next, Hawkins claimed that the trial court did not consider all the options when deciding his sentence. However, the court found no evidence that the trial court failed to do its job correctly in this regard. Hawkins also said he should have been allowed to call a witness named Bianca Thomas, but the court decided that the trial judge acted within reason when excluding her from testifying. Lastly, Hawkins felt that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. While the court agreed that his lawyer's performance was not up to standard, they concluded that it did not negatively impact Hawkins's case overall. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision for the first count of lewd molestation and adjusted the sentence for the second count to ten years, while still keeping the sentence structure as ordered by the lower court.