Constitutional Right

M-2011-1083

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.

Continue ReadingM-2011-1083

C-2011-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.

Continue ReadingC-2011-1119

C-2010-1059

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1059

RE-2010-293

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-293

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

C-2009-1192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2009-1192

M 2009-1064

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.

Continue ReadingM 2009-1064

C-2009-900

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-900

RE-2010-0510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-0510

F-2008-1199

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1199, Cody Robert Grenemyer appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for two counts. One judge dissented. Grenemyer was found guilty of committing serious sexual crimes against his daughters, including rape and lewd molestation. The abuse happened over a period of time and was described by multiple victims. Despite Grenemyer's denial of the allegations, the testimony of his daughters was consistent and compelling enough for the jury to convict him. During the trial, Grenemyer wanted to introduce evidence that the younger victims had been molested by another man earlier. However, the trial court decided that this information wasn't relevant to the case at hand. The judge recognized that while the evidence could have some bearing, it also risked confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing the victims. Grenemyer argued that his sentences were too harsh, claiming that life imprisonment without parole was not appropriate under the law effective at the time of his offenses. However, this was found to be without merit as the law allowed for such sentences. The appeals court found an issue with how much past behavior information was shared during the trial, particularly focusing on the testimonies of older siblings who spoke of their own experiences of abuse. The amount of such information might have led the jury to concentrate more on past actions rather than the specific charges brought against Grenemyer. The judges agreed that while the evidence did not affect the jury's determination of guilt, it likely influenced the sentences they recommended. Thus, Grenemyer’s sentences for the first-degree rape charges were modified to ensure he would have the possibility for parole after serving a portion of his sentence. In conclusion, while the convictions were upheld based on the strong testimony of the victims, the sentence was adjusted to reflect the concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the overwhelming amount of past abuse information presented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1199

C-2009-69

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-69, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Resisting an Officer, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2009-69

F-2008-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-229, an individual appealed his conviction for several counts of child sexual abuse and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count. One judge dissented. The individual, Timothy Ray Belvin, faced multiple serious charges in a district court. The charges included child sexual abuse, procuring a child for pornography, and lewd acts with a child. During the trial, some charges were dropped, but he was found guilty on others. The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts and ten years on the rest, with the sentences being served at the same time. In his appeal, the individual raised several arguments. He claimed that some of his convictions should be overturned due to the statute of limitations, which limits the time for prosecuting a crime. He also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove certain charges and that he did not receive proper legal help during his trial. Furthermore, he believed the punishment was too severe. After reviewing everything, the court determined that the prosecution was allowed to pursue one of the charges because there was evidence that acts occurred within the time frame allowed by law. They also found enough evidence for the conviction on several counts. However, they agreed that one charge did not have enough proof, so they reversed that specific conviction. The court also concluded that the defense was effective and that the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances. As a result, the court upheld most of the convictions and instructed the lower court to dismiss one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2008-229

C-2007-717

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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.

Continue ReadingC-2007-717

C-2007-50

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-50, the petitioner appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented. The petitioner was originally charged in the Oklahoma County District Court with unlawful possession of a handgun based on previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each case. These sentences were set to run at the same time, which is known as concurrently. Later, the petitioner asked to withdraw his guilty plea. He believed he did not receive proper legal help during the hearing for this request because his lawyer had a conflict of interest. This means that the lawyer might have been more focused on their own issues instead of helping the petitioner. Even though the petitioner did not raise the problem of the conflict during the hearing, the court found that the situation affected the performance of his lawyer. Because of this, the court decided that the petitioner had been denied his right to effective legal assistance. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, which is a formal request to review the decision, and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. At this new hearing, the petitioner will have the chance to be represented by a lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2007-50

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015

F-2006-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-854, Delbert L. Gibson appealed his conviction for two counts of lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Gibson was found guilty of sexually fondling two young girls, aged thirteen and eleven, in September 2002. During the incident, Gibson followed the older girl into a bedroom and began to fondle her. The younger girl was also fondled shortly after. The girls told their mother about the incident and reported it to the police. Gibson raised four main points of error during his appeal. The first claimed he did not receive a speedy trial. The court looked at how long he waited for the trial, why there was a delay, whether he asked for a quick trial, and if the delay harmed his case. Gibson was charged in November 2002 but was not arrested until March 2005, with the trial occurring in June 2006. The court found that even though the delay seemed long, Gibson did not complain about it before the trial, which hurt his argument. Therefore, the court believed he was not denied a speedy trial. Gibson's second point was about other-crimes evidence that was presented during his trial. The state brought up a past incident where Gibson had fondled a ten-year-old girl while working as a school photographer twenty years earlier. The court agreed that this evidence was probably not properly connected to the current case but felt it did not significantly impact the jury’s decision, especially since the two young girls provided strong testimonies. In his third point, Gibson argued the jury was incorrectly instructed on the penalties for his crimes. He believed that the law didn’t support a mandatory life sentence without parole based on the charges brought against him. The court analyzed the laws and determined that the proper penalties did not include mandatory life sentences, leading them to modify his sentence instead. Finally, Gibson claimed that all these problems together denied him a fair trial. Since the court found no major errors, the cumulative effect claim was also denied. Overall, the court upheld Gibson's conviction for molestation, but changed his sentence to a total of twenty-five years in prison instead of life without parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-854

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

S-2005-1067

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1067

C-2005-1208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1208

F 2004-1091

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1091, Mortarice D. Collier appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana) and Failure to Affix Tax Stamp. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the convictions. One judge dissented. Collier was found guilty of having illegal drugs and not paying the required tax on them. His trial was held without a jury, and he was sentenced to spend time in prison and pay fines. The trial court later reduced his prison time. Collier raised several issues on appeal, claiming that there wasn't enough evidence against him, that he did not get a speedy trial, that the fees for his imprisonment should be changed, and that the police didn't keep the marijuana properly to prove it was really his. After looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court found that the police did not show they kept the marijuana safe and secure after it was taken from Collier's vehicle. There were gaps in the evidence about where the drug was kept, which made it unclear if it was the same marijuana taken from Collier. The court believed that without proper care of the evidence, they could not trust the results of the tests done on the marijuana. Because of this, they decided to reverse Collier's convictions and said they should be dismissed. The judges’ votes were divided, with one dissenting opinion arguing that the original convictions should not be overturned based on speculation about tampering. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to support the arrest and that the case should not have been dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1091

C-2004-1108

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1108, Jonathan Andrew McCubbin appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCubbin's petition for Writ of Certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: McCubbin entered a blind guilty plea, which means he agreed to plead guilty without a deal or knowing what his sentence would be. He was sentenced to fifty years in prison, but would serve only thirty years for each count, all at the same time. After some time, McCubbin wanted to take back his guilty plea and tried to do so by asking the court. He argued that his lawyer did not give him good legal help and that their interests were not the same; his lawyer seemed to be against him during the hearings. The court found that there was a true conflict between McCubbin and his lawyer. The lawyer was unable to defend him properly because they were arguing with each other over whether McCubbin should be allowed to withdraw his plea or not. Because of this conflict and the lack of good legal help, the court said McCubbin needed a new chance to withdraw his guilty plea. This meant the case would go back to the trial court for a proper hearing where he could have a different lawyer represent him.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1108

F 2003-1084

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1084

F 2004-0328

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-0328, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and distribution of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, who was 19 years old, pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year deferred sentence in each case after completing a rehabilitation program. However, the state later sought to accelerate these sentences due to alleged violations of probation. During a hearing, the judge concluded that the appellant had not complied with conditions and imposed a lengthy sentence of twenty-five years for each charge, running consecutively. The appellant argued several points on appeal. He claimed that the acceleration hearing was unfair because he did not have a lawyer to help him. The court agreed that he had not properly waived his right to counsel. The judge's decision to proceed without an attorney was found to be incorrect, as there was no evidence that the appellant could afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the court noted that there were other errors in the process that impacted the fairness of the hearing. The appellate court found merit in the appellant's first argument about not having a lawyer and therefore reversed the acceleration of his sentences. The judges on the panel emphasized that if a new hearing takes place, the appellant must be represented by a lawyer and informed of his rights regarding any plea agreements.

Continue ReadingF 2004-0328

C-2004-739

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-739, Billy Jack Brown, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempt to Manufacture the Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine and/or Amphetamine, Child Endangerment, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Methamphetamine or Amphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his plea. One member of the court dissented. Billy Jack Brown pleaded no contest to three charges related to drugs and child endangerment. He was given a long prison sentence and a large fine. After some time, Brown wanted to change his plea. He said he felt pressured to plead guilty, claiming his lawyer told him if he didn’t, his wife wouldn’t be accepted into Drug Court. Brown said he didn't agree with his lawyer on many things and felt that it was hard for him to make a good decision about his plea. During a hearing about his request to change his plea, his lawyer said he was unsure about how to proceed because he couldn’t recommend that Brown change his plea. The court found that because Brown and his lawyer had a conflict of interest, he did not receive effective help, which is a right every person has. The court decided that Brown should have a new hearing so he could properly address his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The decision was made to let Brown have this chance, and the appeals court ordered that the case be sent back for a new hearing to properly look at his request. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Brown's statements about being coerced were not supported by the evidence and that he had made a voluntary plea.

Continue ReadingC-2004-739

F-2003-673

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

Continue ReadingF-2003-673