In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0848, Andrell Jackson appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence for one of the cases but vacated the revocation for the other case and sent it back for further proceedings. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-916, Andrew Lee Harris appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of McCurtain County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. One judge dissented. Andrew Lee Harris was found guilty on charges for having cocaine. His punishment was set at thirty years, but he did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal. During the appeal, he argued that: 1. The jury wasn't given the right instructions about possession of paraphernalia, which he thought was unfair. 2. The prosecutor gave improper evidence and made comments that affected the fairness of his sentencing. 3. The trial court did not follow required procedures in his case. The court analyzed these claims carefully. In the first point, they decided that the jury did not need to be told about possession of paraphernalia because it was not a lesser included offense of cocaine possession. This means it was a separate crime, and the judge was right not to give those instructions. In his second point, the court looked at the information that was presented during the trial. They said there were some mistakes with what was allowed as evidence. A former probation officer talked about Harris's past, which shouldn't have been mentioned because it could make the jury think about parole and probation unfairly when deciding his sentence. The court found that this could have influenced the jury, especially since they asked questions about how long Harris would be on parole. Therefore, they decided that because of this, it was necessary to reduce his sentence to twenty years. As for the third point, the court felt that the way the trial judge handled certain procedures was not a problem anymore because they had already decided to change Harris's sentence based on the earlier mistake. In the end, the court agreed with Harris’s reasoning about how he should have been sentenced, leading them to change his punishment. They affirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to twenty years in prison.
In OCCA case No. J 2013-0130, D.I.S. appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating D.I.S. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. This case began when a Juvenile Petition was filed on July 25, 2012, against D.I.S., who was just 14 years old. He was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Pontotoc County. After a hearing on February 5, 2013, the judge found that D.I.S. had committed the offenses and declared him a delinquent child. He was ordered to stay with his mother under supervision until another court hearing about his situation. D.I.S. appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he used a dangerous weapon, or that he had intent to cause serious harm. The law requires that to be declared a delinquent child, the evidence must clearly show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court agreed with D.I.S. and said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the idea that he was guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, they reversed the previous ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him. The case was important because it highlighted the need for strong evidence when judging a child in the juvenile justice system. The court made it clear that if the facts aren’t strong enough, they cannot find a child guilty of serious charges. This ruling protects the rights of young people by ensuring they are only judged based on solid evidence.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-514, J.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the motion for certification as a juvenile. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged J.F. on March 7, 2011, for actions that allegedly happened when he was 15 years old. J.F. filed a motion to be treated as a juvenile instead of facing adult charges. A hearing was held where evidence was presented. The court had a specialist provide testimony, and several documents were submitted to support J.F.'s request for juvenile status. The State argued that the court should not have allowed J.F. to be certified as a juvenile, stating that he had not shown enough proof. The court, however, did not find any mistakes in the decisions made by the trial judge and agreed that J.F. should be treated as a juvenile. In the end, the court upheld the earlier decision, allowing J.F. to proceed in the juvenile system.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-357, Bruce Morris Barnett appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that while the trial judge made a mistake by imposing a fine of $100,000 instead of the minimum fine of $25,000, the convictions were upheld. The judge's sentence was modified to change the fine, but the overall decision affirmed the jury's findings regarding the evidence for the convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-814, James Joseph Wymer appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Wymer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. He argued that the jury was not fully instructed about the law regarding his sentence, which meant he wasn't told he had to serve eighty-five percent of it. He also felt that his sentence was too long and that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After looking closely at both the facts and the law, the court believed that the jury should have been informed about the eighty-five percent rule, but they did not think this mistake was enough to set aside the conviction. Therefore, they decided to lower Wymer's sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years. The court also considered whether his sentence was excessive. They found that given Wymer's past convictions, the sentence was fair and not shocking or unreasonable. Finally, they reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was enough proof to show that Wymer took part in the burglary rather than just standing by. The final decision was to keep the conviction but change the punishment to thirty-five years.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-281, Lori Jo Schram appealed her conviction for Possession of Precursor Substances with the Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One member of the court dissented. Lori Jo Schram was found guilty by a jury in Grady County after the police found items related to methamphetamine production at a trailer. The jury decided that she should go to prison for ten years, but five years would be suspended, along with a fine of $10,000. The court also said she needed to pay $2,544.46 to the victim. On appeal, Schram raised several points for why she thought her conviction should be reversed. First, she said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a motion to suppress evidence. She argued the police obtained a search warrant through an illegal search. However, the court explained that an officer was invited to the property and found suspicious items in plain view. Therefore, the court said the search was legal and that the trial court did not make an error. Second, Schram claimed that the prosecution did things that were unfair and that these actions affected her sentence. The court looked at the instances she mentioned and noted that the trial judge told the jury to ignore any improper comments from the prosecutor. The court believed this helped fix any potential errors, and since Schram received a light sentence, the issues raised did not impact it. Finally, Schram argued that the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay was wrong because she was not convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, only possession. The court agreed that the trial court did not properly determine the restitution amount based on the guidelines, so they decided to vacate that order and send it back to the trial court for a proper assessment. Overall, the court upheld the conviction but changed the restitution order, making it necessary for the trial court to reassess how much Schram owed.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1370, Oscar Lee Lamb appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Oscar Lee Lamb was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of five years in prison for each count, with the sentences running consecutively. Lamb challenged the trial court's decision on two main points. First, he argued that there was a mistake when some evidence that was not allowed in the trial was taken to the jury room during their discussions. This was seen as a problem, but the court believed it did not cause any harm to Lamb's case since the content of those pieces of evidence had already been discussed during the trial. The second point brought up by Lamb was more serious. He said that a witness who was an expert gave an opinion on whether or not the victim was telling the truth. The court agreed that this was a mistake because experts should not tell the jury what to believe about who is honest or dishonest. This kind of testimony can really affect the jury's decision, particularly when both sides disagree strongly about what happened. Since the court thought the expert's testimony could have made a difference in how the jury viewed the case, they decided that Lamb should have a new trial. Therefore, the previous court's decision was overturned, and the case was sent back for another trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.