In OCCA case No. C-2004-957, Jeremy Clarence Rankin appealed his conviction for various charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for Certiorari and remanded the case to the District Court for a new hearing on Rankin's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented, stating that he did not believe there was evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the original plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.
In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-593, the Appellant appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the Appellant, after pleading guilty to Sexual Battery, was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions. However, he did not follow these conditions, leading to the State filing a motion to revoke his suspended sentence multiple times. Initially, the Appellant missed treatment sessions, failed to pay necessary fees, and showed a lack of effort to engage in his treatment. After some violations, he had a short revocation of sixty days. Later, the State found he had violated other conditions, such as not registering as a sex offender and changing his residence without informing his probation officer. During the hearing, the judge decided that the Appellant had not followed the rules, thus revoking his suspended sentence and requiring him to serve five years in prison. The Appellant argued that since he had already lost sixty days, his remaining time should be less than five years. The State agreed, stating it should be four years and ten months instead. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s previous short revocation and made the necessary adjustment to his sentence length. Although the Appellant argued the full revocation was too harsh, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that it was within their discretion to revoke the sentence based on the Appellant's repeated failures to comply with probation rules. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke the Appellant's remaining suspended sentence but corrected the duration of time he was required to serve.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1334, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance, possession of a firearm, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. Rodney Taylor Glenn faced charges in three different cases in the District Court of Washington County. He made a plea agreement, which led to some charges being dropped in return for him waiving a preliminary hearing and pleading no contest. The judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to several years in prison for each of his charges. Later, Glenn wanted to withdraw his plea because he believed there were issues with how it was handled. He argued that the court did not check if he was mentally capable of understanding his plea, that there was not enough evidence for some of the charges, and that he was misinformed about the possible punishments. Glenn also claimed that he did not get the benefit of his agreement and that he did not have effective help from his lawyer. The court reviewed Glenn's arguments. It concluded that Glenn was competent to enter his plea and that there was enough evidence for most of the charges. However, the court agreed that there was not sufficient evidence to support one of the assault charges, which meant Glenn could withdraw his plea for that specific charge. Additionally, Glenn was correctly advised about some of the punishments but misinformed about others, which led to the decision to let him withdraw his plea on those counts as well. The court ultimately decided to keep some of the sentences but allowed Glenn to withdraw his plea for the assault charges and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony based on the errors found. In conclusion, the judgment and sentence were affirmed in part and reversed in part. Thus, Glenn was allowed to change his plea on certain counts, while other parts of his case remained unchanged.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-1117, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the appellant's request to be certified as a Youthful Offender but reversed the decision regarding the Assault charges, allowing those to be tried as a Youthful Offender. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as an adult with serious crimes, including murder. The appellant wanted to be treated as a Youthful Offender, which would mean he could receive rehabilitation instead of severe punishment. A special judge conducted hearings to decide if the appellant could be certified as a Youthful Offender, meaning he would be tried in a different system designed for young people. During the hearings, expert witnesses gave differing opinions about whether the appellant could be helped and rehabilitated if treated as a Youthful Offender. One expert believed the chances were good, while others thought the appellant needed more time to be rehabilitated. Based on all the information and expert opinions, the judge decided not to certify the appellant as a Youthful Offender and instead required him to be tried as an adult for the murder charge. On appeal, the appellant argued three main points: first, that the judge made a mistake by not certifying him as a Youthful Offender, second, that the judge should have removed himself from the case, and third, that he should not have been charged as an adult for the Assault with Intent to Kill counts since those should be treated as Youthful Offender crimes. The court looked at the evidence presented in the trial, including testimonies from experts and details of the appellant's life. The conclusion was that the judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding the appellant should be tried as an adult for the murder charge. However, the court did agree with the appellant concerning the Assault with Intent to Kill charges; since he was between 15 and 17 and those charges are typically handled differently, the court ordered that he be processed as a Youthful Offender for those counts. In the end, the court upheld the decision regarding the murder charge but reversed the decision on the Assault with Intent to Kill charges, indicating that the appropriate course was for those to be treated under the Youthful Offender system.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1278, James Lorenzo Devers appealed his conviction for Inducing a Minor to Engage in Prostitution and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions with some modifications. One judge dissented. Devers was tried in Tulsa County and found guilty of multiple charges involving sexual misconduct with teenage boys. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines after considering testimonies from three victims who claimed Devers offered them money to perform sexual acts. Despite some conflicting details regarding the timing of his proposal, the evidence against Devers was strong, including his own confession about some of the offenses. The appeal included several arguments. One claim was about the trial court's decision not to separate the charges for trial. The court maintained that the offenses were connected and reflected a consistent pattern of behavior, justifying their joint consideration. The court found no prejudice in trying the counts together. Devers also argued the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the punishment for his indecent proposal charge. However, the court noted that the error did not change the outcome since he would have received the same sentence even under the correct guideline. Another point of appeal was regarding whether the jury was informed about parole eligibility. The court ruled the instructions were appropriate since the charges in question did not include those that required serving a certain percentage of the sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged that there was a mixing of punishment provisions in the instructions but decided any fines would be adjusted because of that error. Ultimately, after reviewing all claims, the court upheld the convictions but modified the fine amount for Devers' offenses. The judgment was affirmed with modifications, while one judge expressed disagreement with some aspects of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-816, John Carl Fike appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction for possession of methamphetamine should be reversed and dismissed, but the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana were upheld. One member of the court dissented. John Carl Fike was tried and found guilty by a jury for having cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He was sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine and methamphetamine, with fines, and six months in jail for marijuana, also with a fine. Fike argued that the roadblock where he was stopped was not legal, that he was held unlawfully, and that evidence against him was not properly handled. He also felt his punishments were too harsh and there were multiple errors during his trial that made it unfair. The court looked at these claims. They determined that the roadblock was done correctly. They said that Fike was not held unlawfully and that the evidence was accepted correctly, so those claims didn't change the outcome. However, they found that Fike could not be punished for both cocaine and methamphetamine under the law, which is called double jeopardy. So, they reversed the conviction for methamphetamine. The other sentences were deemed acceptable by the court, which also said he was treated fairly in regards to his trial. Overall, the court upheld the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana but ended the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the stop and search of Fike were not done properly.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-741, C. C. appealed his conviction for attempted larceny of domestic game. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling and clarify that the total restitution to be paid by C. C. and his co-defendant is $8,000. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-1203, Floyd Andrew Morris appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence and remand the case for correction of the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Floyd Andrew Morris had a suspended sentence for growing and having marijuana after he pleaded guilty. Initially, he was supposed to serve ten years for one charge and one year for another, but both sentences were put on hold. Later, the state argued that he broke the rules of his probation by not following the drug court program instructions and testing positive for drugs. After some hearings, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentence. However, there was confusion about how much of that sentence should actually be carried out. The appeal pointed out that the written order didn’t match what the judge had said before and that the time he was supposed to serve was excessive based on what he had done. The court found that the way the sentence was ordered needed to be corrected to show that Morris should serve ten years minus the thirty days he had already served. They decided not to change the decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence, as they believed it was not an unreasonable choice given the situation.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-890, Saul Perez appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from eighteen years to ten years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Saul Perez pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Neglect, which means he was accused of not taking care of a child properly. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Shortly after, Perez asked to take back his guilty plea, saying he shouldn’t have to accept the charge. He had several reasons why he believed the court should let him withdraw his guilty plea. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was responsible for the child's neglect. Second, he thought he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, so it wasn't a voluntary choice. Third, he said his punishment was too harsh, especially since he felt he hadn’t had a duty to care for the child, and the neglect wasn’t intentional. Lastly, he claimed he didn’t have a proper interpreter during an important meeting about his plea, which he believed violated his rights. The court reviewed all the facts and found that two of his reasons were valid enough to change his punishment. They determined that there was some confusion in the case about whether he truly understood the crime he was admitting to. They discussed what “neglect” meant and explained that the law is meant to hold responsible individuals accountable for a child's safety and care. Ultimately, while the court did not consider some of the reasons Perez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea, they agreed that his punishment was too severe based on the situation. Therefore, they reduced his sentence to ten years in prison instead of the original eighteen. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that without proving that Perez had a duty to care for the child, he should not be seen as guilty of a crime. This dissent meant that there was a difference of opinion among the judges regarding the case.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-305, D.H.D. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of D.H.D.'s motion for certification as a juvenile but reversed the denial for certification as a youthful offender, meaning D.H.D. would be tried in a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0106, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation in one case and affirm it in another. One judge dissented. The appellant had a history of legal issues. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a five-year deferred sentence. This means he would not go to jail immediately but had to follow certain rules for those five years. In 1999, he pleaded guilty again, this time for having a firearm as a felon. After some time, a hearing took place to see if the appellant broke the rules of his suspended sentences. The court decided to take away part of his suspended sentence in both cases. However, the appellant argued that the court should not have been able to do that because his first sentence had already expired before the new hearing, making it unfair to revoke it. The court looked into this and agreed with the appellant on the first case, stating they had no right to take away the suspended sentence because it was no longer valid. However, for the second case, they found that the state had followed the proper steps and had the right to revoke his suspended sentence there. In the end, the court told the lower court to dismiss the revocation for the first case, but they maintained the revocation for the second case.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-364, El Alami El Mansouri appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions but reversed others. The court found that two of the infractions—kidnapping and pointing a firearm—should be dismissed due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-397, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including drug possession and firearms charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved Michael Wayne Hackler, who had been previously convicted in three separate cases. He was given five years of suspended sentences for felony and misdemeanor drug and firearm offenses. However, the state claimed he violated his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a petition to revoke his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge decided that some evidence obtained against Hackler could not be used to revoke his probation due to improper police actions. However, the judge also ruled that the police behavior was not serious enough to apply a rule that would prevent that evidence from being considered in the revocation hearing. After examining the evidence, the court found that the appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentences. The judge’s rulings were questioned, but the appeals court agreed that there was no major mistake in how the judge made his decisions. However, the court did note that the written sentences needed to be changed to show the correct punishments for some of the misdemeanor charges. In the end, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court to revoke the suspended sentences and ordered corrections to be made to the judgments regarding the sentences imposed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-640, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant had a one-year suspended sentence, and the State filed a request to revoke it. The appellant said he did not do anything wrong and pleaded not guilty. A hearing took place, and the court decided to revoke his sentence. The appellant then appealed this decision. Later, the court found that the first court should not have revoked the sentence because of a timing issue. The appellant's waiver to shorten the waiting period was not done on time. Since this was a mistake, the appeals court decided to dismiss the request to revoke his sentence and canceled the earlier decision. As a result, the appellant's original sentence was not revoked, and he was no longer under that revoked sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0857, #Montgomery appealed his conviction for #Burglary, Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence, but modified the length of the revocation to three years. #One judge dissented. Montgomery had initially pled guilty to burglary and was given a chance to stay out of prison under certain rules for four years. However, he broke the rules multiple times. The state asked the court to impose his sentence because he did not keep a job, did not pay the money he owed, and committed new crimes like driving without a license. The judge revoked a large portion of his sentence for these reasons. On appeal, Montgomery argued that the judge had no right to take away three and a half years of his sentence and that the punishment was too harsh. The court found that while the judge made a mistake in calculating the time, the decision to revoke the sentence was not seen as overly harsh, so they changed the revocation from three and a half years to three years instead.