Court Decision

F-2020-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-208, Ryan Cortland Johnson appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Ryan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, meaning he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He argued that the state court did not have the right to try him based on a Supreme Court decision from 2020 called McGirt v. Oklahoma. In this case, it was determined that certain crimes committed by members of federally recognized tribes on tribal land could not be prosecuted in state courts. Ryan Johnson claimed he was a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the murder happened on Creek Nation tribal land, which is considered a reservation. The court allowed him to challenge its jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, but the parties involved agreed on certain facts, which meant a hearing was not necessary. They confirmed that Ryan is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the crime took place on land owned by the Creek Nation. After reviewing the facts, the district court found that Ryan is indeed an Indian under federal law and that the crime took place in the Creek Nation boundaries. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to charge him with murder based on the findings in the McGirt case. Because of this ruling, the court granted Ryan's appeal, decided the state court had no jurisdiction, and instructed that the case be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2020-208

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

RE 2018-0397

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0397, Wesley Scot Kilpatrick appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Kilpatrick had a previous case where he pleaded guilty to robbery but had a burglary charge dismissed. He was given a seven-year suspended sentence, meaning he wouldn’t go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. However, he didn’t pay the costs he was supposed to, and he got into more trouble by allegedly committing new crimes. Because of these new issues, the State asked to take away his suspended sentence. A hearing was held, and the judge decided to revoke the seven-year sentence completely. Kilpatrick then appealed, saying the judge made a mistake in revoking his suspension. The court explained that judges have the right to decide if they want to revoke suspended sentences based on their discretion. They said that they wouldn't change the judge's decision unless it was clearly wrong. Since Kilpatrick did not show that the judge made an obvious mistake, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE 2018-0397

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

F-2014-870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-870

RE-2014-238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-238

RE 2013-0885

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0885

J-2014-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-326, J.L. appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm J.L.’s adjudication of delinquency. One judge dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.L. on August 16, 2013, highlighting the two charges. The lower court found J.L. delinquent on April 8, 2014. J.L. argued that the evidence was not enough to show that he intended to harm someone. He also claimed that there wasn’t proof that the knife he had was indeed a dangerous weapon against school rules and that the judge acted like a prosecutor instead of remaining neutral. The court looked at the evidence closely. They needed to see if any reasonable person could find J.L. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite some conflicting testimony about the events, the evidence presented was enough to support the conclusion that J.L. committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. Regarding J.L.'s second point about the knife, the court determined that photographs provided were adequate to prove that it was a prohibited weapon on school grounds. In the third argument, J.L. said the judge did not stay neutral when he handled the knife in court. The judge asked someone to bring in the knife and then had J.L. confirm that the knife shown was similar to his. Since J.L. didn’t object to this during the trial, he could not complain about it later unless he could prove it was a serious mistake. The court explained that J.L. had to show that there was a real error that changed the outcome of the case. Since he couldn’t show this, the court decided not to take action on his claims. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision that J.L. was delinquent for the charges against him. The opinion concluded with directions for the lower court to adjust one of the charges to a lesser offense.

Continue ReadingJ-2014-326

RE-2013-635

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-635, Bradberry appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended life sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the full revocation and modify it to a ten-year revocation instead. One judge dissented. Bradberry was given suspended life sentences for failing to register as a sex offender and living near a school. He was on probation for less than two weeks when the state accused him of not reporting to his probation officer and not providing proof of employment or treatment. The trial judge decided to revoke his sentences completely due to these violations. Bradberry argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking his sentences in full, claiming it was excessive. The appeals court agreed that the judge abused his discretion, especially since many of Bradberry’s previous issues happened before his new sentencing. They found that the most significant reason for the revocation was his failure to report, which they believed did not warrant a full revocation. In the end, the appeal court decided that Bradberry’s suspended sentences should be modified. Instead of serving a life sentence, he would have to serve ten years of his suspended time. One judge disagreed with this decision and believed the full revocation was justified because Bradberry had not met his probation requirements.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-635

S-2013-140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.

Continue ReadingS-2013-140

RE-2011-249

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-249, the appellant appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and causing an accident resulting in great bodily injury while driving under the influence. In a published decision, the court decided that the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion and modified the sentence to time served. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2011-249

RE-2010-10

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-10, a person appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the length of the revoked suspended sentence should be shortened. One member of the court disagreed with this decision. The case began when the person was charged and sentenced as a Youthful Offender for lewd molestation. He was given eight years, but on December 22, 2008, he had part of that sentence suspended after spending some time in juvenile custody. Later, he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation, which included failing to register as a sex offender and not completing required treatment. During a hearing, the judge decided that the individual had violated his probation and revoked five years of his suspended sentence. However, upon appeal, the court found that he should actually receive credit for the time he was under juvenile supervision. Given this credit from December 1, 2005, to December 22, 2008, the court modified the revocation to just over four years instead of five. The district court was instructed to update the sentence accordingly.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-10

S-2009-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-567

F-2008-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.

Continue ReadingF-2008-531

F-2007-909

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-909, Val Wilkerson appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Val Wilkerson was found guilty by a jury in Haskell County for a serious crime. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years in prison. After the trial, Wilkerson felt that things went wrong and he raised several points to appeal. First, he argued that the State used too much unfair evidence from other incidents that made him look bad. He thought this made the trial unfair. Second, he believed it was wrong for the prosecutors and police to mention that he had stayed quiet when asked questions. Third, he said the court did not give the jury the correct instructions. Lastly, he claimed that all these mistakes together made his trial unfair. The Court looked over everything carefully and agreed that the way other crimes were presented was a problem. They found that even though some earlier actions of Wilkerson were similar to what he was accused of, the older incidents happened a long time ago and should not have been brought up so much in his trial. The Court determined that while some bad evidence was allowed, the main evidence against Wilkerson was enough for the jury to find him guilty. However, the additional bad evidence likely influenced the length of the sentence because the prosecutor asked the jury to consider these past actions when deciding on punishment. Since the Court believed that the jury was distracted by this unfair evidence while deciding on the punishment, they changed the sentence to fifteen years instead of thirty. They also concluded that other issues raised by Wilkerson either did not affect the trial’s fairness or were fixed by the trial court’s instructions. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed that the punishment was too harsh and lowered it. One judge disagreed and believed the case should be tried again.

Continue ReadingF-2007-909

M-2006-1334

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-1334, Michael David Williams appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for one count but reversed the other, instructing that charge be dismissed. One member of the court dissented. Michael David Williams was charged with two counts of misdemeanor Domestic Abuse after incidents involving his wife. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for both counts, though one fine was not imposed. Williams claimed errors in the trial regarding witness statements, insufficient evidence for his conviction, and misconduct by the prosecution. During the trial, Williams' wife testified that no abuse had occurred and that injuries she had were due to a fight with her aunt and an accident. However, earlier police statements made by her during investigations indicated otherwise. Williams argued the trial court should not have allowed these statements without proper instruction on how the jury could use them. The court noted that it could allow witness statements to be used for impeachment purposes, even if the witness didn't fully recall making them. However, the court found that the jury might have been misled about how to use those statements in one of the cases, leading to confusion regarding the evidence of guilt. The court affirmed Williams' conviction for the first case, where there was a lot of strong evidence against him, including police testimony and photographs of the scene. However, for the second case, the court ruled that the evidence presented was not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They decided to reverse this conviction and ordered it to be dismissed. In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction for the first incident but reversed the second due to insufficient evidence and errors in how the trial was conducted.

Continue ReadingM-2006-1334

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

RE-2005-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-863

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440

F 2005-362

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-362, Pat Lee Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Pat Lee Richardson was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter after a trial without a jury in Comanche County. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had a defense based on Oklahoma's Make My Day Law, which allows people to use force against intruders in their homes. Richardson claimed the victim was an intruder when he was stabbed. The court explained that the Make My Day Law applies only when someone enters a home, but the victim was standing on the porch, not inside the house. Therefore, Richardson could not use that law as a defense. The court also noted that stabbing the victim a second time while he was on the ground was not justified. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not provide good assistance by not presenting the Make My Day Law defense. However, the court believed this did not affect the outcome of his trial since the law did not apply to his case. He also argued that his actions were justifiable as self-defense. The court stated that there was no evidence to show that he was in danger at the moment he stabbed the victim, considering the victim presented no serious threat. Lastly, Richardson argued that his 35-year sentence was too harsh. The court agreed and modified his sentence to 20 years, feeling that the original sentence was shocking and too severe when taking into account certain factors of the case. Overall, the court upheld the guilty verdict but decided to reduce the prison time that Pat Lee Richardson would have to serve.

Continue ReadingF 2005-362

RE-2004-584

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-584, Sarah Mae Jones appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified it to reflect two years and ten months instead of the full sentence. One dissenting opinion was noted. Sarah Mae Jones had initially entered a guilty plea on October 18, 2001, for possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended. This meant she wouldn't have to serve time in jail if she followed certain rules. However, after violating her probation, she had parts of her suspended sentence revoked on two different occasions. The first revocation happened because she did not meet some requirements like reporting in person, maintaining a job, and avoiding illegal drugs. This led to a 60-day revocation. The second time, in March 2004, the state argued that she had again broken the rules of her probation. The court held another hearing where the judge decided to revoke her entire suspended sentence. On appeal, Jones claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the complete revocation of her sentence. However, the court found that her own admissions during the hearing showed she had indeed violated her probation terms, which justified the judge’s decision. They explained that proving a violation only needs to show that it was likely she broke the rules, not to have a witness directly see it happen. In her second argument, Jones said the decision to revoke her entire suspended sentence without giving her credit for time already served was too harsh. The state agreed with her on this point, and upon reviewing her case, the court modified the revocation to two years and ten months, accounting for the time she had already spent under the suspended sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke her suspended sentence but adjusted the length of that sentence to better reflect the circumstances.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-584

F-2001-1048

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1048

C-2001-665

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-665, the petitioner appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who had been originally charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor child, reached a plea agreement where the charges were reduced. He pled guilty to the lesser offense of indecent exposure and received a 20-year prison sentence, which was the minimum possible. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he had been misled about the prison time he would actually serve. He argued that he was incorrectly informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence if he went to trial, which was not true for his case. The court found that the misinformation affected his decision to plead guilty even though he had also given contradictory statements during the hearings. The court ultimately ruled that because he was misinformed, his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. As a result, his conviction was vacated, and he was allowed to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2001-665

F 2000-740

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.

Continue ReadingF 2000-740