Constitutional Rights

F-2008-434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-434, Dusty Ray McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Dusty Ray McGee was found guilty of murdering a homeless man named John Seeley after a brutal attack. The attack happened when McGee and others returned to an abandoned apartment complex where Seeley was staying. They confronted him because they were stealing metal from the site. During this attack, McGee, along with his accomplices, kicked and hit Seeley multiple times with different objects. After the assault, they took pictures of the injured Seeley, who was still alive at that time. McGee was arrested a few days later and admitted to being part of the attack but claimed he didn't intend to kill Seeley. He mentioned that he wanted to call an ambulance afterward but was threatened by one of his accomplices. During McGee's trial, there were several issues. The jury asked many questions that showed they were confused about what made a crime first or second-degree murder and how sentencing worked. The judge didn’t handle these questions properly and didn’t bring the jurors back to discuss their worries in front of everyone. This made it hard for the jury to understand everything they needed to know to make a fair decision. The court acknowledged that the improper handling of the jury's questions likely impacted McGee's rights to a fair trial. Because of these errors, the court reversed McGee's conviction and ordered a new trial, suggesting that the previous trial did not follow the required legal procedures properly.

Continue ReadingF-2008-434

F-2009-177

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.

Continue ReadingF-2009-177

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-2009-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-129, David Deontae McCoy appealed his conviction for burglary, robbery, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of the convictions, reversed one, and ordered a new trial for that count. One judge dissented. David Deontae McCoy was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes, including first-degree burglary, robbery by two or more persons, and assaults with dangerous weapons. He received long prison sentences for each count, but they would all be served at the same time. McCoy argued that his convictions were based on unreliable eyewitness accounts, especially regarding a witness named Megan Kinter. He claimed that because the eyewitnesses were mistaken, his convictions should be thrown out. He also pointed out that the trial court made a mistake by not giving a specific warning to the jury about believing eyewitness identification. Another important point McCoy raised was about getting punished multiple times for the same incidents. He said that the law protects him from being punished more than once for the same crime and argued that some of his charges violated that protection. McCoy thought he did not get a fair trial because the jury was not given all the necessary details about what his assault charges entailed. He also claimed that certain photographs shown during the trial should not have been allowed because they could be unfairly upsetting and hurt his case. Additionally, McCoy accused the prosecutors of bad behavior during the trial, which he said prevented him from having a fair trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which is also a right he has. After reviewing McCoy's arguments, the court found that the evidence against him was strong enough that he was likely involved in the crimes. They said that even if there were issues about the eyewitness identification, it did not weaken the case enough to change the outcome of the trial. The court mentioned that the trial judge did not correctly instruct the jury about the important parts needed to prove one of the assaults. Because of this, they decided that it was necessary to reverse that conviction and order a new trial. For another assault charge, although there was also a mistake in instructions, the court believed that it wouldn't have changed the result of the trial. So, they did not reverse that conviction. Finally, the court corrected a mistake about how McCoy's convictions were recorded, making sure the written records reflected what he was actually charged with. So, while two of McCoy’s convictions were kept, one was sent back for a new trial due to issues with how the jury was instructed.

Continue ReadingF-2009-129

RE 2009-0510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.

Continue ReadingRE 2009-0510

C-2009-617

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-617, Christopher Overby appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when Overby pleaded guilty to having a firearm while he was supposed to be under supervision. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with some of that time being suspended. After some time, Overby wanted to change his plea, so he filed a motion to withdraw it. He felt that he did not get proper help from his lawyer during this process. The court looked at Overby's case and determined that there was a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer. Because of this conflict, the court found that Overby did not get the effective help he was entitled to, especially when it came to his request to withdraw his plea. This situation meant he deserved a new hearing with a different lawyer who could fully represent his interests without a conflict. In conclusion, the court decided that Overby should have another chance to present his case for changing his plea. Thus, the decision was made to give him a new hearing to ensure that he had the right kind of support during this important process.

Continue ReadingC-2009-617

F-2008-432

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-432, Anthony Wayne McCosar appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Threatening an Act of Violence, Public Intoxication, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate certain fines but affirmed the other parts of the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-432

F-2008-381

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-381, Cecil Ray Johnson appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Cecil Ray Johnson was found guilty of kidnapping and received a 20-year prison sentence. He argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed the crime of kidnapping. He also said that evidence of other crimes should not have been allowed in the trial because it did not have a clear connection to the kidnapping charges. The court agreed with Johnson on the second point. They explained that evidence of other crimes can sometimes be used, but it must be relevant to the case at hand. In this situation, the evidence of Johnson’s past acts was too old and did not clearly connect to the kidnapping charge. The court said that using this evidence could unfairly influence the jury against Johnson. Because of the problems with the evidence, the court found that Johnson did not receive a fair trial. Even though they thought there was enough evidence for his conviction, they had to reverse the decision because it was unfair to include the other crimes evidence. In conclusion, the judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial to ensure Johnson gets a fair chance in court. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the evidence of other crimes was relevant to show Johnson’s intent.

Continue ReadingF-2008-381

F-2007-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-987, Tony Brown appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and Attempted Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Tony Brown was found guilty of breaking into a building and trying to steal a car. He was given a total sentence of 17 years in prison along with a $1,000 fine. Brown believed that he was not given a fair trial for several reasons. He said that the jury should have been told about a simpler crime related to the burglary and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charge of attempted car theft. Brown also argued that a witness shouldn’t have been allowed to testify because it hurt his case. Additionally, he claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that the prosecutor did things that were unfair. After looking at everything, the court found that Brown should have been given information about the simpler crime of unlawful entry, and that the jury should have considered that first. They also felt that the testimony from a detective saying Brown was lying was too much and unfairly harmed his chance to have a fair trial. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse Brown’s convictions and send the case back for a new trial, where he could have a chance to present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2007-987

F-2007-616

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-616, Donald and Tanya Dorr appealed their convictions for various drug-related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss all of their convictions. One judge dissented. Donald Dorr was found guilty of growing and possessing marijuana, carrying a firearm as a felon, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He received a 20-year prison sentence and other fines. His wife, Tanya Dorr, was convicted of marijuana cultivation and possession, receiving a suspended sentence and a fine. The Dorrs argued that the police searched their property illegally. They raised several issues about the search, including that it was based on observations from a helicopter without a warrant, and that their consent to search the property was not given freely. The court found that the initial observation from the helicopter did not violate their rights, as the police were allowed to look from the air. However, the Dorrs raised valid points about the lack of a search warrant. The court noted that police did not show there was immediate danger that required them to act quickly without a warrant. The officers had enough time to get a search warrant after spotting the marijuana. The court also considered the circumstances under which Donald Dorr gave consent to search. They found that the large presence of armed officers, along with a helicopter overhead, likely made it challenging for Dorr to give genuine consent. The judges decided that the officers acted inappropriately by not seeking a warrant and that the consent given was not voluntary. Since the evidence obtained from the search was considered illegal, the court concluded that all charges against the Dorrs should be dismissed. This decision rendered the other arguments made by the Dorrs unnecessary. Therefore, all convictions against Donald Dorr and Tanya Dorr were reversed and dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2007-616

F-2007-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.

Continue ReadingF-2007-767

F-2007-200

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.

Continue ReadingF-2007-200

RE-2007-323

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-323, Durant appealed his conviction for the unlawful use of photographic equipment for lewd and lascivious purposes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. To provide a bit more detail: Durant had entered a plea of no contest to a charge of second-degree rape in 2003 but received a suspended sentence. In 2005, he was charged with a new crime, which caused the state to seek to revoke his suspended sentence. After being convicted of the new offense in 2006, his suspended sentence was revoked in 2007. Durant argued that the law used to revoke his sentence was unconstitutional, that evidence against him was gathered illegally, and that there wasn't enough evidence for revocation. Later, in May 2008, the court reversed his conviction for the new crime, suggesting that his actions, though not acceptable, did not fit the legal definition of a crime. Because his suspended sentence was based only on that conviction, the court reversed the decision to revoke it.

Continue ReadingRE-2007-323

F-2006-1086

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1086, Anthony Paul Free appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Free was found guilty of Lewd Molestation after an incident on December 10, 2005, involving a seven-year-old girl. The girl's aunt saw Free touching her inappropriately. During the trial, the State introduced evidence of Free's prior sexual offenses from twenty years earlier, which Free objected to. He argued that this evidence was unfair and did not relate to the current case. The court ultimately found that the past offenses had no clear connection to the current charges. They determined that using this older evidence was likely to prejudice the jury against Free, which isn't allowed. As a result, the trial court's decision to admit this evidence was seen as a substantial violation of Free's rights, leading the court to reverse the previous conviction and call for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1086

F-2006-191

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-191, Hurst appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hurst's sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Hurst was found guilty of a crime involving inappropriate touching, which led to a sentence of 13 years in prison. Hurst raised four main arguments for his appeal: 1. He claimed the trial court did not give proper instructions to the jury, which made it unfair for him. 2. He argued that some evidence used against him in court was obtained in an illegal way, violating his rights. 3. He said that his attorney was not allowed to talk about certain things during closing arguments, which hurt his defense. 4. He believed that all these errors combined made his trial unfair. The court looked closely at all parts of the case, including the trial records and evidence. They found that Hurst deserved to have a new sentence because the jury had not been properly instructed, particularly about how much time they could decide to give him. This was his first offense and he should have been warned about the sentencing rules. The jury had asked for help with the sentencing, which meant they might have been confused. As for the other arguments, the court decided there weren’t any mistakes that would change the result of the case, like the refusal to give instruction on eyewitness identification or the claims about the way evidence was gathered. The court also agreed that the trial judge was right in limiting what Hurst's attorney could say during closing arguments. In summary, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing where the jury would be properly instructed.

Continue ReadingF-2006-191

F-2006-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-68

F-2005-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1094

F-2005-1058

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1058

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

F-2005-1282

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1282

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

F-2005-901

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.

Continue ReadingF-2005-901

F-2005-1150

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1150, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery by Force and Fear and False Personation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Robbery and affirmed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Carr was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Cleveland County. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for robbery and 4 years for false personation, with both sentences running at the same time. Carr argued that the trial court's instruction to the jury, known as a dynamite charge, forced them to reach a decision unfairly. The court examined the entire case, including trial records and evidence. They decided that the instruction given during deliberations was coercive. This means it pressured jurors to go along with the majority without respecting their own honest beliefs. The court noted that the instruction did not tell jurors to stick to their true feelings about the case. They found that this mistake was serious enough to require a new trial for the robbery conviction. The court made this decision based on the law, stating that an accurate jury instruction is important for a fair trial. While one judge had a different opinion and thought the error wasn't as serious, the majority believed that not warning jurors to hold onto their honest beliefs could have affected the outcome of the trial. As a result, they reversed the decision on the robbery while keeping the other conviction intact.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1150

F 2005-569

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF 2005-569

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737