Continuing Course of Conduct Archives

F-2017-1248

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1248, Aislyn Jonelle Miller appealed her conviction for five counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Miller was found guilty by a jury of not taking care of her two young children, which included not providing them with enough food and not getting them the medical care they needed. The jury suggested that she be sentenced to thirty years in prison for four of the counts and ten years for one count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Miller argued several points on appeal. First, she claimed that two of her convictions for neglecting one child should not count separately, as they were for the same offense – one for not feeding the child and the other for not getting medical care. She also made a similar claim regarding her neglect of her other child. However, the court found that failing to feed the children and failing to get medical care for them were different acts, so her separate convictions were valid. Miller’s next argument was that she did not have good legal representation during her trial. The court explained that to prove this, she needed to show that her lawyer made big mistakes and that these mistakes changed the outcome of her case. Since the court deemed her convictions valid, it concluded that any issues raised about her attorney’s performance would not matter since those objections would not have made a difference. Lastly, Miller claimed that the judge should have allowed her to serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other, which would have meant a shorter time in prison. The court pointed out that judges have the right to decide how to run sentences, and in this case, the judge acted reasonably and considered all the facts before deciding to run them consecutively. Overall, the court did not find any errors in the trial process that would have changed the outcome, and so they upheld the original sentence given to Miller.

F-2017-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 2, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1146, Scott Milton Donley appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold his convictions. One judge dissented. Scott Milton Donley was found guilty of two crimes during a bench trial: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. He received a sentence that included twenty years for the first crime and one year for the second crime, with both sentences running at the same time. Donley argued that he should not be punished for both crimes based on double jeopardy rules, meaning he shouldn’t be charged twice for what he claimed was the same act. The court examined whether there was proof for each crime that did not overlap. They found that Donley committed separate acts of pushing and slapping the victim before threatening her with a knife, which were seen as different offenses that required different evidence. Therefore, the court decided there was no double punishment. Donley also claimed there wasn't enough evidence to show he committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon because he argued that the knife he used wasn't sharp. However, the court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from him, the victim, and officers. They concluded that any reasonable person could find he intended to cause harm with the knife and that it was indeed a dangerous weapon. Lastly, Donley argued that he didn’t willingly give up his right to a jury trial. However, the court found clear proof that he had done so. The process was completed in court, and both he and the prosecutor waived the jury trial properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences against Donley, stating that all his claims were without merit.

F-2011-407

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.

F-2005-620

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.

S-2004-1009

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2005
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2004-1009, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Donald Isaiah Phares for negligent homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the prosecution. One judge dissented. To summarize, this case started from a car accident on September 15, 2003, where Phares was involved in a collision that resulted in another driver's death. Phares was first charged with a traffic offense for failing to stop at a stop sign and paid a fine for that. Later, in January 2004, the State filed a charge of negligent homicide against him, claiming his action of not stopping at the stop sign was reckless. Phares argued that being prosecuted for negligent homicide after already being punished for the traffic violation was unfair and violated his rights to not be punished twice for the same act. The court agreed with him, stating that both charges came from the same action, and therefore, he could not be punished for both. They found that the traffic offense was part of the negligent homicide claim and ruling that prosecuting Phares again for negligent homicide would lead to double punishment. The court decided the district court's dismissal was correct as the two charges stemmed from the same event, adhering to the law that prevents someone from facing multiple punishments for the same act. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of the negligent homicide case against Phares.