Competent Evidence

RE-2012-1032

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1032

S-2012-1012

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.

Continue ReadingS-2012-1012

RE-2012-590

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-590, Todd Aaron Henderson appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to vacate the order revoking Henderson's suspended sentence and dismiss the State's application to revoke. No judge dissented. Henderson had first entered a guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence in 2009, and his sentence was put on hold while he completed a drug court program. After successfully finishing the program in January 2011, his charge was changed to a misdemeanor, and he was given a one-year suspended sentence. However, in January 2012, he was stopped by police and faced new charges, including a second DUI. Following these new charges, the State requested to revoke his suspended sentence. In June 2012, the court revoked Henderson's suspended sentence based on the new charges. On appeal, Henderson argued that the court did not have the authority to revoke his sentence because the State filed the application for revocation one day after his sentence had completed. The State agreed with Henderson, stating that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the sentence since the request was submitted after the completion of the suspended sentence. The court ruled in favor of Henderson, reversing the revocation, and ordered the case to be remanded with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke his sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-590

S-2011-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2011-208

F-2009-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.

Continue ReadingF-2009-149

S-2009-862

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.

Continue ReadingS-2009-862

S-2009-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

Continue ReadingS-2009-858

F-2008-620

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-620, Vincent Vasquez appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution. No one dissented. Vasquez was found guilty by a jury on three counts related to sexual abuse of a child. He received eight years in prison for each count, which would be served one after another. However, part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve the full time for all counts right away. Vasquez argued that there were several mistakes made during his trial. First, he claimed that the evidence wasn't strong enough to support his convictions, saying the victim's testimony was inconsistent. The court said that the ruling was valid because the victim's main story was consistent and believable, even if she forgot some minor details. Second, Vasquez believed that important evidence was not allowed in court, which he thought would help prove his side of the story. However, the court decided that the evidence offered was not relevant to the case. Third, he argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding how to look at the evidence. The court concluded that the instructions given were sufficient and did not harm his case. Fourth, Vasquez objected to an order to pay restitution, which the State admitted was incorrectly imposed. The court agreed to remove that requirement. Lastly, Vasquez suggested that the combination of all these errors should lead to his conviction being overturned. The court found that there were no cumulative errors that warranted relief. In conclusion, the court maintained Vasquez’s convictions but removed the restitution order.

Continue ReadingF-2008-620

F-2007-340

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-340, Robert Dewayne Hayes, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder Youthful Offender, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, but reversed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2007-340

F-2006-1339

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1339

RE-2006-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-1308

S 2005-702

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

Continue ReadingS 2005-702

RE-2004-614

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-614

RE-2004-435

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-435, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and return the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In the original case, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts involving illegal drugs. The judge sentenced him to several years in prison but suspended the sentences with conditions, including not using drugs or not violating any laws. Later, the state asked to revoke his suspended sentences because he was arrested for new drug-related crimes. The state claimed he broke the terms of his probation. During a hearing, the appellant's probation officer testified but did not have direct evidence against the appellant, like a confession or firsthand knowledge, which led to questions about the evidence's reliability. The judge revoked the appellant's probation, but the appeals court found the evidence insufficient to support this decision. They explained that the state did not provide enough solid proof that the appellant committed new crimes and emphasized the importance of the right to confront witnesses when proving probation violations. As a result, the court reversed the revocation decision and ordered the case to be sent back for further proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-435

C-2003-399

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-399, Ronnie Lamar Coulter appealed his conviction for multiple counts including First Degree Rape and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the original conviction while reversing the conviction for Count 12, which was for Assault with a Deadly Weapon. One judge dissented. Coulter had pleaded guilty to several serious crimes and was sentenced to a total of 200 years in prison. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial court denied this request. His appeal included complaints about the lack of a recorded sentencing hearing, the harshness of his sentence, and the validity of the Count 12 charge. The court found that Coulter had knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that the lack of a recorded hearing did not hinder his ability to appeal. The judges ruled that there wasn’t evidence to suggest that the sentencing was unfair or based on inappropriate information. However, Coulter's appeal concerning Count 12 was granted because the judges agreed that there was no basis for the charge since no battery had been committed as required by law. Thus, the court upheld most of the original convictions but reversed the one regarding Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

Continue ReadingC-2003-399

RE 2002-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.

Continue ReadingRE 2002-1124

RE-2001-749

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-749, Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. had originally entered a guilty plea for Second Degree Burglary and Concealing Stolen Property in 1993. He was given three years of imprisonment on both charges, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail if he followed certain rules. However, he committed another crime in 1993, which violated the terms of his suspended sentences. In 1994, the State applied to revoke his suspended sentences because of this new crime. There was a significant delay before the hearing actually took place. Heath was not given a hearing until 2000, which was almost six years after the application to revoke was filed. He argued that the State did not act quickly enough and that this delay meant the revocation should not happen. The State admitted that they had made a mistake and agreed with Heath’s concerns about the delay. The court agreed with Heath’s argument and decided to reverse the order that revoked his suspended sentence. They also instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision meant that Heath’s original sentences were not enforced, and he would not have to serve them because the State did not handle the process in a timely manner.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-749

RE-2001-180

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-180

RE-2000-1429

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-1429

RE 2000-1512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-1512

RE 2000-0688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0688

RE 2000-0434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0434