In OCCA case No. F-2001-503, Derrick L. Jethroe appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-378, Phillip Scott Coulter appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Phillip Scott Coulter was found guilty by a jury in a case about serious allegations of wrongdoing involving children. The trial happened in Kingfisher County, and the jury decided to give him a sentence of five years for each count. These sentences would be served one after the other. Coulter did not agree with the decision and asked the court to review the case. He raised several points to argue why the decision should be overturned. First, he said that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support his conviction. He believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he acted inappropriately with any child. Next, he claimed that the prosecutor used improper tactics during the trial that made it unfair. He also said that his lawyer did not represent him well and this made it harder for him to defend himself in court. Lastly, he pointed out that he was not allowed to properly question one of the witnesses about things that had happened to her before, which he believed was important for his defense. After looking at all these arguments and the evidence presented during the trial, the court agreed that one of Coulter's rights was not respected. Specifically, they ruled that he was not allowed to question the witness in a way that could show whether she was being honest. This was important because it affected the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the conviction and said there would have to be a new trial. Since they were reversing the case based on this issue, they did not need to rule on the other arguments Coulter had made. In summary, the court found that Coulter's right to confront and question his accuser was not honored, leading to their decision to grant him a new trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-609, John Henry Harris appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. John Henry Harris was found guilty in a trial without a jury. The court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and a fine of $25,000. However, Harris appealed this decision, arguing that the police had violated his rights during the arrest. The main issue was whether the police were allowed to enter Harris's home without a warrant. The court reviewed the case law related to the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, police need a warrant to enter a person's home, unless there are special circumstances. One of these situations is called hot pursuit, which means the police can follow someone closely if they believe a crime has been committed and the person might escape. In this case, the court found that Harris's arrest did not require a warrant since the police were trying to apprehend him for minor traffic violations and a misdemeanor charge. They ruled that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify entering the home without a warrant. The court also emphasized that the police needed to show that waiting for a warrant would have resulted in the loss of evidence, which they did not prove. As a result, the court stated that the trial court had made a mistake by not agreeing to Harris's request to dismiss the evidence obtained during the illegal entry into his home. Since the evidence was critical for his conviction, the court had no choice but to reverse Harris's guilty verdict and instructed the trial court to dismiss the charges against him. The dissenting opinion believed that the police acted properly. The dissenting judge pointed out that Harris committed multiple traffic violations and tried to escape from the police by running into a house where he did not live. When the police arrived, the homeowners informed them that Harris should be chased. The dissenting judge felt that the police were justified in entering the home to make the arrest and to prevent potential harm to the homeowners. In summary, the court’s decision to reverse Harris’s conviction was based on the belief that his rights were violated through an illegal entry into his home without a warrant.
In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.
In OCCA case No. F-01-313, *Steven Wayne Robertson* appealed his conviction for *Attempted Burglary in the First Degree* and *Assault with a Dangerous Weapon*. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Robertson was found guilty by a jury for two crimes. He was accused of trying to break into a house (attempted burglary) and attacking someone with a weapon (assault). The jury decided to give him a ten-year prison sentence for each crime, which would usually mean he would spend twenty years in prison, but the court later decided he would serve both sentences at the same time, totaling ten years. Robertson claimed that it was unfair to punish him twice for what he said was one event. However, the court concluded that the two charges were based on different actions and that he could be punished for both. They looked at the evidence, like a witness who saw him with an axe, showing he was dangerous. He also said he should have had the chance to argue that he only caused damage to property instead of trying to break in, but the court found that this was not needed based on the facts of the case. Finally, Robertson thought he did not get a fair trial because of some things the prosecutor said during the trial. The court agreed that there were improper comments but still decided to keep the guilty verdicts and just change the sentences so that he would serve ten years instead of twenty.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1078, Samuel Leroy Muzny appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case. One judge dissented. Muzny was charged and tried in the District Court of Lincoln County. He was found guilty of growing marijuana on his own property and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with eight years suspended, and a $5000 fine. Muzny raised several arguments in his appeal. He stated that agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics should not have entered his fenced property without a warrant to check for marijuana plants. He claimed this violated his right to privacy and was against both state and federal laws. The court examined these arguments closely. The majority found that because the agents entered a posted and fenced area without a warrant, this violated Muzny’s constitutional rights. They referred to a previous case to support their conclusion that the warrants are necessary for such searches. Therefore, they reversed Muzny's conviction. One judge disagreed with this decision and wrote a dissent. He believed the court was changing established laws on search and seizure, which could create confusion for future cases. He argued that the law should remain consistent to ensure fairness and clarity in the legal system. In summary, the court’s decision led to Muzny’s conviction being overturned due to the lack of a warrant for the search, while a dissenting judge believed this ruling undermined the established legal framework.
In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1422, Crider appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Crider was found guilty of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter, Crystal Dittmeyer, after she went missing in 1996. In trial, the evidence against him included blood found in their home and in his car, as well as a patterned injury on Crider's arm that was argued to be a bite mark from Crystal. The prosecution claimed Crider transported her body in a garment bag and disposed of it. Crider raised several issues in his appeal, including concerns about the reliability of expert testimony that suggested the bite mark on his arm could have come from Crystal. The court found that the expert methods used were not scientifically reliable and did not help the jury understand the evidence. This issue alone warranted a reversal of the conviction. Additionally, the court identified errors in admitting evidence related to luminol tests, which suggested the presence of blood in Crider's car but later tests were inconclusive. The admission of testimony related to a rural area where Crystal's body was not found was also seen as prejudicial and misleading. Overall, the court determined that the combination of these errors negatively impacted Crider's right to a fair trial. The ruling emphasized the need for reliable and helpful expert evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The court called for a new trial to ensure Crider received a fair hearing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-991, Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the marijuana charge and affirmed the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Tammy Baldwin was found guilty of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana in Oklahoma. The jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in jail for marijuana, and the sentences were to be served one after the other. Baldwin raised several points in her appeal. First, she argued that her two convictions violated the double jeopardy rule, which means you can’t be punished more than once for the same offense. She believed that because both drugs were found in the same place, it should be treated as one act. Second, she claimed her rights were violated because the judge had already decided to give her consecutive sentences if she was found guilty, which she felt was unfair. Third, Baldwin thought the judge made a mistake by not letting the jury hear her side of the story, specifically by refusing to give instructions about circumstantial evidence. Fourth, she argued that the evidence obtained from her purse should not have been allowed in the trial because it violated her rights against illegal searches. Lastly, she felt that all these errors combined made the trial unfair, which denied her due process. After looking closely at Baldwin’s case, the court agreed that the two convictions for possession were wrong because they were based on the same act of possession. The court decided that having both drugs in one place meant she could only be charged with one count of possession, not two. Due to this, they reversed the marijuana conviction but kept the methamphetamine conviction and the 20-year prison sentence. The judge's other points were either not decided or did not matter because of this main decision about the double jeopardy issue. The final outcome was that Baldwin's sentence for methamphetamine stayed, but the marijuana charge was dismissed, meaning she didn’t have to serve time for that. One judge disagreed with the majority decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-515, Larry Alan Schroeder appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including burglary and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and sentences but reversed some related to specific counts due to insufficient evidence and legal issues. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of certain burglary counts, believing there was enough evidence to support those convictions. Ultimately, some charges were upheld while others were dismissed, shaping the outcome of the appeal.