In OCCA case No. C-2007-717, Inez Lee Shaw appealed her conviction for multiple counts of knowingly concealing stolen property and possession of firearms after conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Shaw's sentence for one of the counts from ten years to five years but affirmed the judgments and sentences in all other respects. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1162, Leroy White Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including trafficking in illegal drugs, failure to obtain a drug stamp, assault and battery on a police officer, unlawful possession of paraphernalia, aggravated assault, attempting to destroy evidence, and threatening a violent act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm White’s convictions and sentences for the most part while vacating some fines. The court carefully reviewed the arguments White made on appeal. He claimed that his rights were violated when police entered his hotel room without a warrant, that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions, and that he did not receive proper jury instructions regarding fines. The court determined that the police had a good reason for entering the hotel room because they smelled marijuana and were responding to a situation where evidence might be destroyed. This justified the warrantless search. White also argued that being convicted for trafficking drugs and failing to obtain a tax stamp should not both lead to punishment. However, the court explained that the law allowed for separate punishments in this case since the two charges were different and required different evidence. Regarding the fines, the court noted that the trial judge had imposed fines without properly instructing the jury on what fines to recommend. The court agreed this was an error, so they decided to vacate these fines but upheld the minimum fine for the trafficking charge. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences given to White, confirming that while some fines were removed, the convictions remained. The judges involved in the decision agreed on most points but noted some concurrence in the results. In conclusion, White's appeal was mostly denied, but some corrections were made regarding the imposed fines.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-554, Aaron Perry Hampton appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal and affirmed most aspects of the lower court's decision, but also instructed the lower court to correct some clerical errors. One judge dissenting. Hampton had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including burglary and assault, and was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison. He later tried to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered them and that the sentences were too harsh. The court found that he had been mentally competent and was aware of his actions when he pleaded guilty. They determined the sentences were appropriate for the crimes he committed. However, they agreed that there were mistakes in the official paperwork regarding the sentences and case numbers, so they sent the case back to the lower court to fix those errors while keeping the original sentences in place.
In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-58, Fredrick Demon Cleveland appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of cocaine and possession of drug proceeds but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the marijuana conviction. Cleveland was found guilty of three charges: possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing drug proceeds, and possessing marijuana. The court sentenced him to various terms in prison, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. Cleveland raised several points in his appeal. He argued that convicting him for both cocaine and marijuana possession violated his rights because the drugs were found together. The court found that although he possessed both drugs, it counted as a single act of possession under the law. Thus, they reversed the marijuana conviction. Regarding another point, Cleveland claimed that a witness gave inappropriate testimony that swayed the jury. The court acknowledged this concern but determined the error was not big enough to change the overall outcome of the case. They emphasized that other evidence supported the convictions for cocaine possession and drug proceeds. In summary, the court affirmed the convictions for cocaine and the related crimes but dismissed the marijuana charges, reflecting that the possession of different drugs at the same time can lead to different legal interpretations based on state law. One judge, however, believed that the marijuana conviction should have been upheld, arguing the legislature intended for both offenses to be prosecuted even when the drugs were found together.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-569, Anthony Logan Merrick appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes involving minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of Merrick's convictions but reversed and dismissed certain specific counts. One judge disagreed with part of the decision. Merrick was tried and found guilty of 21 counts of sexual abuse of a child, 2 counts of sexual exploitation of a child, 15 counts of possession of obscene material involving minors, 4 counts of first-degree rape by instrumentation, and 8 counts of indecent or lewd acts with a minor child under sixteen. He received two life sentences and additional time for the other charges, which would run together, but separately from some other counts. Merrick raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the search warrant used to gather evidence was not valid because it did not show enough probable cause, and therefore, the evidence collected should not have been allowed in court. The court disagreed and explained that the affidavit (the document that supported the search) did provide a reasonable basis for the warrant. They determined that there was enough evidence to suggest a crime had taken place and that the search was lawful. He also claimed the warrant was not detailed enough in specifying what items could be seized. The court found that the warrant was correctly written to allow officers to identify the items they needed to seize. Merrick's next point was about double punishment. He argued he should not be punished for both the act of lewd molestation and the possession of related images, saying it was unfair. However, the court concluded that these were separate crimes, and thus he could be punished for both. Merrick also believed he should only be charged once for a large number of images found, but the court stated that there were indeed separate counts for each type of evidence that were introduced. Lastly, Merrick claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which hurt his case. The court said there wasn't enough evidence to show that he was harmed by his lawyer's performance. As a result, the court upheld the majority of the convictions while reversing some counts related to possession of images, ordering them to be dismissed.
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. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.
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. C-2005-211, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and producing child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment while modifying the sentences. One judge dissented. Chad Justin Berntson entered guilty pleas to two serious charges related to child pornography in December 2004. In February 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison for each charge, with the sentences set to be served at the same time. He later asked to change his pleas, but the court said no. Berntson argued there were misunderstandings with the plea deal and claimed that one of the charges was not applied correctly, which made his plea involuntary. He also felt that the ten-year sentences were too harsh. After looking closely at his claims and the documents related to his case, the court decided that he did not have a misunderstanding about his plea. They noted that Berntson knew what to expect as they both agreed on a sentence of ten years. However, the court found that he was charged incorrectly with one of the counts, meaning he should have faced a lesser maximum sentence according to the different law that applied. Because of that, they changed the judgment and sentence for that count to five years instead. In the end, the court denied Berntson's request to change his plea, but they adjusted his sentence. They set both counts to five years in prison instead of the original ten years. The two sentences would still be served at the same time. One judge disagreed with how the court modified the sentences, believing that if Berntson entered a valid plea and got the sentence he expected, it should not be changed. This judge thought the court was wrong to alter the charges and punishments after the fact.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1226, Anthony Jerome Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including felony eluding an officer, obstructing an officer, and robbery with a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for eluding an officer and robbery with a firearm, but reversed the conviction for obstructing an officer, with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the obstruction charge. The case stemmed from an incident where Johnson carjacked a woman’s car and fled from police after they initiated a traffic stop. During his escape, he ran numerous stop signs and caused danger to others on the road. Following a high-speed chase, he crashed the car and then ran on foot, trying to evade capture from arresting officers. At trial, Johnson was found guilty and sentenced to several years in prison as well as a fine for the offenses committed. On appeal, he argued four points. First, he claimed that the charges against him violated protections against double jeopardy, stating that the actions he took should not be counted as separate crimes since they arose from one act of fleeing. Second, he contended that evidence for felony eluding was not sufficient, suggesting the situation warranted a lesser charge. Third, he asserted that there was insufficient evidence for the armed robbery conviction. Lastly, he believed inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony supported reducing his sentence. The court, after reviewing the case thoroughly, determined that the convictions and sentences for eluding and robbery were valid. The court found sufficient evidence supporting these convictions, including testimony from eyewitnesses and evidence that directly linked Johnson to the robbery. However, they agreed with Johnson's argument regarding the obstructing charge, concluding both his car and foot chases should be treated as one continuous act of fleeing, therefore only allowing the conviction for eluding. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for eluding an officer and robbery but instructed that the obstruction charge be dismissed. The dissenting opinion expressed a different view on the obstruction charge, arguing that Johnson's actions could be considered separate acts deserving of distinct charges.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-355, Bobby Ray Wyles, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial judge wrongly ordered Wyles’ sentences to run consecutively with a later sentence instead of concurrently, which violated the original sentencing agreements. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-816, Martin appealed his conviction for several serious crimes against children. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Solly Lee Martin, Jr. was found guilty of multiple charges which included lewd molestation, attempted forcible oral sodomy, and child sexual abuse. The trial happened in Ottawa County, where he received very long sentences for these crimes, which involved terms that ranged from 10 years to life in prison. Some sentences were ordered to be served together, while others had to be served after. During his appeal, Martin claimed he was not given a fair trial. He argued that the trial judge wouldn't allow him to show evidence about the complainant's past which he thought could help his case. In another claim, he said that some testimony during the trial was unfairly negative against him and could influence the jury's decision. The court looked closely at Martin's complaints. They found that he did not properly follow the rules to show the evidence he wanted to introduce, so his first complaint was not accepted. For the second complaint, the court agreed that some of the testimony presented was error, as it talked too much about what the crime might do to the victims in the future, which is generally not allowed in these types of cases. Despite these issues, the court decided that overall, Martin's convictions would remain, but they agreed to change his sentences. Instead of them running one after the other, they made them all run at the same time. The final decision was that although the court kept the convictions, there were changes to make sure the sentences were fair.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-161, James Robert Bonomelli appealed his conviction for three counts of crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Bonomelli was found guilty of having child pornography, possessing a firearm as a felon, and having marijuana. The jury decided on long sentences, which added up to a total of 100 years in prison. Bonomelli claimed he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his trial because the court did not let him postpone it. He also believed that the sentences were too harsh. After looking at the facts and Bonomelli's arguments, the court agreed that the judge should have allowed Bonomelli more time for his defense but decided that he did not prove this made his lawyer ineffective. However, they thought the total 100-year sentence was too much for him. They decided that the punishment should be reduced to 40 years in total, with all counts running at the same time instead of one after another. This means Bonomelli would spend a maximum of 40 years in prison instead of 100.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.