Court of Criminal Appeals

F-2004-997

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.

Continue ReadingF-2004-997

F-2004-1081

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1081, Charles Edward Moore, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and modify some sentences. One of the judges dissented. Charles Edward Moore faced serious charges and was found guilty by a jury. He received a total of fourteen years for each robbery, ten years for each kidnapping, and ten years for possession of a firearm related to a past felony. The judge ordered that Moore serve these sentences one after the other. On appeal, Moore argued several points. First, he believed he was unfairly punished for two separate robbery counts concerning the same incident. However, the court decided that this did not violate any laws about double punishments. Next, Moore claimed a conflict between his robbery conviction and the charge for possession after a felony. The court agreed with Moore regarding this point and reversed his conviction for that charge. Additionally, Moore argued that the trial court made an error by not allowing a jury instruction about his eligibility for parole. The court found this to be a mistake but decided to change the sentences for the robbery convictions from fourteen years to ten years each. The court maintained the trial judge's decision to have the sentences served consecutively. Moore also argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer, but the court believed that his case would not have ended differently even with better representation. He further disagreed with the court's admission of evidence about his past wrongdoings, but the court denied that claim too. Lastly, Moore asserted that the combined errors during his trial should lead to a reversal. The court disagreed and upheld the decisions made during the trial. In summary, while the court agreed to modify some of Moore's sentences, it affirmed most of the convictions and found no significant errors that would affect the overall outcome of the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1081

F 2004-816

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-816, Martin appealed his conviction for several serious crimes against children. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Solly Lee Martin, Jr. was found guilty of multiple charges which included lewd molestation, attempted forcible oral sodomy, and child sexual abuse. The trial happened in Ottawa County, where he received very long sentences for these crimes, which involved terms that ranged from 10 years to life in prison. Some sentences were ordered to be served together, while others had to be served after. During his appeal, Martin claimed he was not given a fair trial. He argued that the trial judge wouldn't allow him to show evidence about the complainant's past which he thought could help his case. In another claim, he said that some testimony during the trial was unfairly negative against him and could influence the jury's decision. The court looked closely at Martin's complaints. They found that he did not properly follow the rules to show the evidence he wanted to introduce, so his first complaint was not accepted. For the second complaint, the court agreed that some of the testimony presented was error, as it talked too much about what the crime might do to the victims in the future, which is generally not allowed in these types of cases. Despite these issues, the court decided that overall, Martin's convictions would remain, but they agreed to change his sentences. Instead of them running one after the other, they made them all run at the same time. The final decision was that although the court kept the convictions, there were changes to make sure the sentences were fair.

Continue ReadingF 2004-816

F-2005-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-619

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F 2004-1091

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1091, Mortarice D. Collier appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana) and Failure to Affix Tax Stamp. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the convictions. One judge dissented. Collier was found guilty of having illegal drugs and not paying the required tax on them. His trial was held without a jury, and he was sentenced to spend time in prison and pay fines. The trial court later reduced his prison time. Collier raised several issues on appeal, claiming that there wasn't enough evidence against him, that he did not get a speedy trial, that the fees for his imprisonment should be changed, and that the police didn't keep the marijuana properly to prove it was really his. After looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court found that the police did not show they kept the marijuana safe and secure after it was taken from Collier's vehicle. There were gaps in the evidence about where the drug was kept, which made it unclear if it was the same marijuana taken from Collier. The court believed that without proper care of the evidence, they could not trust the results of the tests done on the marijuana. Because of this, they decided to reverse Collier's convictions and said they should be dismissed. The judges’ votes were divided, with one dissenting opinion arguing that the original convictions should not be overturned based on speculation about tampering. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to support the arrest and that the case should not have been dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1091

J-2005-1078

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-1078, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced the appellant as an adult and directed that he be treated as a youthful offender in the event of a conviction. No judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as a youthful offender on September 23, 2004. After a request to be treated as a juvenile was denied, the state filed a motion to sentence the appellant as an adult. This motion led to a trial that was scheduled for September 12, 2005. However, just before the trial started, the state asked to cancel the trial and have a hearing on the motion to sentence him as an adult, which was scheduled for October 12, 2005. During the appeal, the appellant raised three main issues. He argued that the delays in bringing the charges against him were unfair and that the case should be dismissed. He also claimed that the state could not pursue adult sentencing because the trial had already begun before the hearing, and lastly, he said there wasn't enough evidence to show he couldn't be helped through the juvenile system. The court looked closely at the timing of when the trial started and when the hearing to sentence him as an adult happened. They determined that the trial had indeed started when jury selection began, and the law required that the hearing on the adult sentencing motion should have happened before the trial began. Since it did not, the court found that the district court made a mistake by allowing the state to strike the trial after jury selection had started and then proceed with the sentencing hearing. As a result, the order to sentence the appellant as an adult was reversed, and the case was sent back to the district court with instructions to treat the appellant as a youthful offender if he were to be convicted.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-1078

C-2005-207

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-207, William Allen Pelican, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented. Pelican was sentenced after entering a plea deal where he accepted nolo contendere pleas to three counts of serious crimes. These included rape by instrumentation and first-degree rape. He was given a total sentence of 22.5 years, with part of it suspended, and was also fined. Later, Pelican sought to withdraw his pleas, but the trial judge forced his lawyer to talk about the case despite the attorney having a conflict of interest. The lawyer felt he could not fully support Pelican because he also represented someone else. Because the trial judge didn’t let the lawyer withdraw before discussing the case, Pelican was not effectively helped by his attorney. This was seen as unfair to Pelican since he deserved a lawyer who could fully support his case without conflicts. The court recognized this problem, stating that everyone has the right to have a lawyer who can represent them fully and without conflicts. Because of these issues, the court decided to give Pelican another chance to have a hearing with new legal help so he could properly address his request to withdraw his pleas. The decision was made to correct the case records and ensure that Pelican would be fairly represented in the future.

Continue ReadingC-2005-207

C-2004-1156

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1156, Timothy Mark Watkins appealed his conviction for child abuse and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1156

F-2003-1241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1241

C-2004-1017

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1017, Libera appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Libera's petition to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Stephen Mark Libera was charged for concealing stolen property in Tulsa County. He chose to waive a preliminary hearing and entered a guilty plea. During the plea, there was some confusion about what the consequences would be. Although there was mention of a possible deferred sentence (which would mean he might not have to serve time), Libera felt he was not given clear advice about what this plea meant for him. When he was sentenced, the court did not follow what a previous report suggested, which was to give him probation instead of prison time. Libera believed that if the recommendation by the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) was not followed, he should be allowed to change his guilty plea. He felt he had been led to believe that probation would be granted, and when it wasn't, he wanted to withdraw his plea. The court agreed that he should have been given a chance to do so. Thus, they decided in favor of Libera, allowing him to withdraw his plea and sending the case back for further actions consistent with the new decision. One judge did not agree with this outcome.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1017

C-2004-1108

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1108, Jonathan Andrew McCubbin appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCubbin's petition for Writ of Certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: McCubbin entered a blind guilty plea, which means he agreed to plead guilty without a deal or knowing what his sentence would be. He was sentenced to fifty years in prison, but would serve only thirty years for each count, all at the same time. After some time, McCubbin wanted to take back his guilty plea and tried to do so by asking the court. He argued that his lawyer did not give him good legal help and that their interests were not the same; his lawyer seemed to be against him during the hearings. The court found that there was a true conflict between McCubbin and his lawyer. The lawyer was unable to defend him properly because they were arguing with each other over whether McCubbin should be allowed to withdraw his plea or not. Because of this conflict and the lack of good legal help, the court said McCubbin needed a new chance to withdraw his guilty plea. This meant the case would go back to the trial court for a proper hearing where he could have a different lawyer represent him.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1108

C-2004-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-850, the petitioner appealed her conviction for five crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for most of the convictions, but they did reverse and dismiss one misdemeanor count. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2004-850

F-2004-1217

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1217, a person appealed his conviction for escaping from a work facility. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the original twenty-year sentence to ten years. One judge dissented, believing the original sentence was appropriate given the defendant's past convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1217

F-2004-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-527, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy and dismiss that count due to insufficient evidence, while affirming the conviction for distribution. One judge dissented on certain issues. McGee was found guilty in the District Court of Stephens County for distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute another. He received a twenty-year sentence and a fine for each count. He appealed his convictions based on five main arguments. First, McGee claimed there was not enough evidence to support his conspiracy conviction. The court agreed with this claim, stating that for a conspiracy to exist, there must be two parties who agreed to commit the crime. Since there was no evidence showing that another person was involved in the agreement with McGee, the conspiracy charge was dismissed. Second, McGee argued he was denied his right to present mitigating evidence to the jury. The court noted that character evidence is generally not allowed in non-capital cases, therefore finding his claim without merit. Third, McGee said he was denied the right to represent himself in court. However, the court found that he had withdrawn his request to act as his own attorney, so this claim was also dismissed. Fourth, he argued that he did not receive effective assistance from his attorney. The court concluded that McGee's lawyer had successfully achieved the dismissal of two other charges against him and did not fail in his responsibilities. Finally, McGee felt that he had been wrongly made to defend against his past convictions during the trial. The court explained that after a previous plea deal was canceled, his case was reset as if no plea had happened, and thus, he was not unfairly treated by needing to defend against prior offenses. In summary, the court affirmed McGee's conviction for distribution but reversed and dismissed the conspiracy conviction due to a lack of evidence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-527

F 2004-161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-161, James Robert Bonomelli appealed his conviction for three counts of crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Bonomelli was found guilty of having child pornography, possessing a firearm as a felon, and having marijuana. The jury decided on long sentences, which added up to a total of 100 years in prison. Bonomelli claimed he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his trial because the court did not let him postpone it. He also believed that the sentences were too harsh. After looking at the facts and Bonomelli's arguments, the court agreed that the judge should have allowed Bonomelli more time for his defense but decided that he did not prove this made his lawyer ineffective. However, they thought the total 100-year sentence was too much for him. They decided that the punishment should be reduced to 40 years in total, with all counts running at the same time instead of one after another. This means Bonomelli would spend a maximum of 40 years in prison instead of 100.

Continue ReadingF 2004-161

C-2005-78

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2005-78

J-2005-542

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-542

F 2003-1084

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1084

F-2004-643

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.

Continue ReadingF-2004-643

F-2004-1216

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1216

F-2004-907

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-907, David Wayne Robbins appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences to fifty years for each of the first two counts, which would be served one after the other. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-907

RE-2004-614

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-614

RE-2004-445

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-445, Dewayne Eugene Ring appealed his conviction for attempted burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Ring should have a chance to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not eligible for a suspended sentence due to his prior convictions. The court found that his previous felony convictions meant that part of his sentence that was suspended was void. Therefore, they ordered that the lower court should give him a chance to withdraw his plea. If he chose not to withdraw it, the court was to make him serve the full sentence. One judge dissented in this opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-445

C-2004-1018

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1018, Eric Poe appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Poe to withdraw his plea due to newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that Poe was aware of the evidence before entering his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1018