In OCCA case No. F-2005-1145, Robert Lee Peace appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-914, Mark Wayne Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Wayne Johnson was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a fine. He believed that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial. Johnson pointed out that his lawyer failed to bring in expert witnesses who could have helped his case and also did not challenge important evidence properly. Johnson raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that the trial judge acted unfairly by scolding his lawyer in front of the jury. This made Johnson feel that he did not get a fair trial. He also argued that important evidence and witness credibility were not handled properly by the trial court, and that numerous mistakes made by his lawyer affected the outcome of the trial. The court reviewed these claims and found that there were many significant errors in how Johnson was represented. The judges said that Johnson's lawyer did not cross-examine witnesses properly or address inconsistencies in the testimonies. They concluded that all these mistakes could have changed the trial's outcome, meaning Johnson did not receive the fair trial he deserved. As a result of these findings, the court reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial.
In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-859, Percy Dewayne Cato appealed his conviction for driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions, but modified one of the fines. One judge dissented. Percy Cato was found guilty by a jury for three different offenses. The first was driving under the influence, which was more serious because he had two previous DUI convictions. The jury gave him a punishment that included time in prison and other conditions like treatment and community service. He was sentenced to a total of four and a half years, with some of that time suspended, meaning he would only serve three years in prison and spend time on probation afterwards. Cato claimed the instructions given to the jury about his previous DUI convictions were wrong, saying they should have been told that one of those convictions couldn't be used to give him a harsher punishment. The court found that this mistake did not harm Cato; he still received a fair punishment based on his actions. He also argued that the way his punishment was split between prison time and treatment violated the law. However, the court ruled that this was okay because the law allows for a mix of punishment and rehabilitation for DUI cases. Cato requested that the jury be told how to consider evidence showing he refused to take a breath or blood test. Although the court said this type of instruction is important, they did not find it necessary in Cato's case because he couldn't prove that it affected the outcome of his trial. In summary, the court upheld the main parts of Cato's punishment while making a small change to one of the fines. The decision was mostly in favor of maintaining his convictions, showing the court believed that the jury's decision was fair and just.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1057, Saul Mintz appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that while his conviction was affirmed, his sentence for the second count should be modified to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-67, Marrio D'Shane Willis appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Marrio D'Shane Willis was found guilty by a jury for robbing someone while using a gun. Because he had a previous conviction, the court gave him a sentence of ten years in prison and a fine. Willis did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal. Willis claimed that his attorney did not do a good job in representing him during the trial. He said that the only witness who identified him as the robber had made a mistake and that there was evidence to support that claim which was not presented in the trial. Willis asked for another chance, known as a new trial, based on this new information. The appeals court looked into Willis's claims and sent the case back to a lower court to find more information. This lower court had a hearing where they listened to the eyewitness. During this hearing, the eyewitness changed his story and said he was not sure about his identification of Willis during the trial. He even said he thought another person might be the actual robber. The appeals court found that Willis’s attorney did not try hard enough to prove that the eyewitness might have made a mistake. They decided that if the attorney had investigated this more during the trial, it could have led to a different result. They believed Willis was treated unfairly because of his lawyer's mistakes. After reviewing everything, the appeals court reversed Willis's conviction, meaning he would not be found guilty anymore based on the trial's results. They agreed with the findings of the lower court that the eyewitness's changed testimony made it difficult to trust what he had said during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that the way Willis was represented in court was not good enough, and because of that, they decided he should not have been convicted of robbery.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-524, Robert Scott Pebbles appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Pebbles had pled guilty to the charge as part of a plea agreement and was given a five-year suspended sentence. However, he later claimed that his attorney pressured him into pleading guilty. He stated that he did not understand the requirements of his probation and was misled about the possible consequences of his plea, including a misunderstanding of the maximum punishment for his crime. During a hearing about his motion to withdraw the plea, Pebbles testified that his attorney had told him he could face the death penalty for the rape charge. The court found that the plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily because Pebbles had been misadvised about the range of punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional, which means Pebbles could not face such a punishment. The court reviewed affidavits from attorneys involved in the case that supported Pebbles' claim of being misadvised. The Attorney General acknowledged Pebbles was indeed not eligible for the death penalty for rape. As a result of these findings, the court decided that Pebbles' guilty plea should be withdrawn. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.