In OCCA case No. F 2012-294, Doris Jean Whitaker appealed her conviction for an unspecified crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to a lack of adequate record on appeal. The State agreed with the decision, acknowledging that the failure to provide a trial transcript denied Whitaker her right to a meaningful review of her case. A dissenting opinion was not noted.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-138, the appellant, a man named Steven Wayne Robertson, appealed his conviction for several felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified one of his sentences to a lower term of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Robertson had pleaded guilty to serious crimes including aggravated assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other offenses. He had been sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the execution of that sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed certain rules in a special program. Later, the state stated that Robertson had broken the rules of the program. He had failed several drug tests and had some run-ins with the law. The judge held a hearing to look into these claims. The evidence showed that Robertson was not following the program's rules and was not cooperating with mental health services. When the judge decided to revoke Robertson’s suspended sentence, he explained that he believed that enough evidence supported this decision. The court also looked at whether original sentences were too long. It was decided that, for the aggravated assault and battery charge, the length of the sentence was more than what the law allowed. Ultimately, while the court upheld the decision to revoke Robertson's sentence for breaking the program rules, they changed his original sentence for one of the charges to the correct legal maximum allowed.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1047, Melvin Edward Dan appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a firearm after previous juvenile adjudication for a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery and burglary, but reverse the conviction for possession of a firearm. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-381, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. Gary Alan Stine took an Alford plea, which means he didn't admit guilt but accepted the punishment, to several serious crimes including indecent exposure and rape. He was sentenced to many years in prison, with some parts of his sentences running at the same time. Later, Stine tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was unfair and that the participation of a guardian ad litem, who looks out for the interests of a child in court, negatively impacted his case. He believed this guardian acted too much like a prosecutor, which he thought was wrong. Stine also thought his lawyer did not help him properly during his case. The court looked carefully at everything, including the original records and what was said in court. They found that Stine's claims about both the guardian's role and his lawyer's performance were not valid. They noted that Stine had properly understood the charges against him and his sentence. Because of this, the court decided there wasn't enough reason to change Stine's plea or his sentence. They agreed that some parts of Stine's requests weren't even considered because they were not raised properly earlier. The court also found there was a mistake in the written document of his sentence that needed correcting, but that was just a small clerical issue, not a bigger problem with his case. In the end, the court denied Stine's petition to withdraw his plea and said they would correct the written sentence to match what was said in court.
In OCCA case No. RE 2011-0359, Lorance Ridell Dever appealed his conviction for a violation of probation after pleading guilty to Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case, meaning they disagreed with the lower court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-875, #Edgar Lee Ussery appealed his conviction for #possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. In an #unpublished decision, the court decided #to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. #No one dissented. In this case, Edgar Lee Ussery entered a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute drugs. He did this after a previous felony conviction. By working with the Drug Court program, he hoped to avoid a long prison sentence. However, if he did not complete the program, he faced up to twenty years in prison for each count. Later, the state asked to terminate Ussery's participation in the Drug Court because of new felony charges he faced. The judge agreed, and Ussery was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, served at the same time. Ussery wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he asked the court to let him withdraw it. He argued that the court wrongly kicked him out of Drug Court. He also claimed that he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading to at the time. The court looked at these claims. They found that Ussery knew what he was agreeing to when he made his plea. They also decided that the judge wasn't wrong to remove him from Drug Court based on his new felony charges. However, Ussery pointed out some mistakes in the process. He argued that the judgment didn’t show he got credit for the time he had already served and incorrectly said he had two previous felony convictions instead of one. The court agreed that his sentence needed some correction to reflect he would get credit for time served and recognized that only one felony conviction was used for his case. They sent the case back to fix these issues but left the other parts of Ussery’s sentence the same. In conclusion, the court denied his request to withdraw his plea, but they did agree to fix some details about how his conviction was recorded.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-4, Dara D. Payton appealed her conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of deferment from the District Court. One judge dissented. Payton was found guilty after a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. The judge decided not to give her a final judgment or sentence right away, instead deferring it for five years. Payton appealed this decision, raising three main points. First, she argued that her arrest should not have happened because it was made outside the officer's jurisdiction, and the officer did not follow the rules for making a citizen's arrest. Second, she claimed that she should not have to pay certain costs and fees because she relies only on disability benefits for her income. Third, she said the written order of deferment did not match what the judge said in court. The court found that Payton's arrest was legal. Even though the officer was outside his normal area, the court believed he was justified in his actions due to fresh pursuit, meaning he was actively following Payton because he saw her breaking the law. The judge stated that the officer followed Payton, observed her erratic driving behavior, and called for more help when Payton could not pass a sobriety test. The arrest was determined to be lawful under the circumstances. Regarding the costs and fees Payton questioned, the court said it could not decide the issue because she had not properly followed the procedures to dispute them. Payton did not request a hearing or show evidence about her financial situation to the court, making it unclear if the costs should be adjusted. For the written deferment order, the court acknowledged that it did not accurately represent what the judge had said. They decided to send the case back to the District Court to fix these errors so that the written order matched what the judge had pronounced in court, specifically that the deferment period would end on December 11, 2015, and that the supervision by the district attorney would only last for the first two years. In summary, while the court agreed with the deferment and found Payton's arrest valid, they also recognized the need to correct the written order to reflect the judge's original statements properly. The judge's conclusions about the case led to an affirmation of the deferment but a remand for the clerical corrections.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-460, Tate appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Running a Roadblock. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Tate was found guilty of trying to get away from the police and running through roadblocks. He also faced charges for assaulting a police officer. The jury recommended sentences which included prison time and fines. Tate argued that he should not be punished for multiple offenses when they stemmed from the same action of fleeing from police, claiming this violated laws against double punishment. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that, while some of Tate's claims were valid, such as his objections to being convicted for both Obstructing and Resisting an Officer, other aspects did not warrant reversal. The judges agreed that being punished separately for Attempting to Elude and for Assaulting an Officer was acceptable because they involved different actions. Overall, the court upheld the conviction on some counts, but reversed others due to overlapping aspects of Tate’s actions. The discussion highlighted the importance of careful laws around double jeopardy to ensure fair punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-480, Huyen Ai Thi Tran appealed his conviction for perjury. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for correcting the fine but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. Ms. Tran was found guilty of perjury by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with three years to be served. Ms. Tran raised several issues in her appeal. She claimed that evidence from other crimes unfairly influenced the jury, which made her trial unfair. She argued that the trial court mentioned she was in custody for an unrelated matter and that her co-defendant talked about other crimes during the trial. However, the court found these issues did not have significant impact. She also argued that the prosecutor asked questions that brought up evidence about other crimes without proper warning, but the court decided these errors didn’t affect the outcome. Ms. Tran argued that her right to remain silent was violated when the jury heard that she had refused to answer questions in a previous case. The court noted that the trial judge intervened and instructed the jury to ignore that testimony. Another point Ms. Tran made was about her lawyer's failure to challenge a juror who was a police officer. Ms. Tran’s lawyer did not pursue this challenge, but the court found that it was not a serious issue since the juror was not working in law enforcement at the time of the trial. Ms. Tran then pointed out that the fine noted in the final judgment was different from what the court initially stated during sentencing. The court agreed to correct this mistake. Lastly, Ms. Tran suggested that all these issues combined created a harmful effect on her case. However, the court concluded that any significant errors were not enough to change the trial’s outcome due to strong evidence against her. The final decision required the correction of the fine in the records, but the conviction for perjury was largely upheld.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-765, Steven Cory Lymen appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court did not misuse its authority when it suppressed evidence and dismissed the case. The State had argued that the witness's identification of Lymen was valid despite it being considered unduly suggestive initially, but the court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the identification was not reliable.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-665, Roy C. Williams appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count of his conviction while affirming the others. One judge dissented. Roy C. Williams was sentenced for his involvement in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. Williams was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court of two counts related to using a vehicle in the shooting and one count for murder. The judge sentenced him to a total of eighteen years in prison, which included twelve years for the murder charge and three years for each of the other counts, to be served one after the other. Williams raised several arguments as reasons for appealing his conviction. He believed that his confession to the police should not have been used against him because he claimed he did not have his right to remain silent protected. He also thought that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. Upon reviewing the case, the court decided that the law enforcement officials acted correctly when they obtained Williams's confession. The court said that he willingly talked to them, so this argument was denied. Regarding the second argument, the court noted that Williams knowingly drove to a place where rival gang members were located with guns in the vehicle. This behavior was enough to show he was part of the act that led to the shooting, so this argument was also denied. The third argument was about a legal principle called the merger doctrine. Williams’s defense argued that his felony murder charge should not stand because it was related to the same act as the charge for using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting. However, the court decided to keep the felony murder conviction, stating that both charges could stand because of the way the law is now interpreted. For his fourth argument concerning double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, the court agreed. They stated that the charges were based on the same set of facts, so they could not convict him on both counts pertaining to the same act. Because of this, the conviction for the second count of using a vehicle was reversed. The fifth argument was about whether Williams should receive credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court ruled that it was up to the trial judge to decide whether to grant that credit and found no evidence that the judge made a mistake in denying it. This argument was also denied. The sixth argument claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court found that even if his lawyer made some mistakes, they did not affect the overall outcome of the case. After reviewing all of his arguments, the court decided to reverse the second count concerning the vehicle but kept the murder conviction and the first charge intact. Thus, Williams had mixed results from his appeal, with one conviction dismissed but others upheld. In conclusion, the decision resulted in one count being reversed and the remaining convictions affirmed, meaning Williams would continue to serve his sentence, minus the count that was reversed.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-644, Jones appealed his conviction for kidnapping, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacate the fine related to the drug paraphernalia charge. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in which he faced several charges, including kidnapping and drug offenses. The jury sentenced him to thirty years for the kidnapping and twenty years for the cocaine possession, with the drug paraphernalia charge resulting in one year and a $1,000 fine. In his appeal, Jones raised multiple issues, including whether the jury was properly instructed, if his trial was fair, and if his lawyer was effective. He specifically challenged how the trial was conducted regarding the instructions given to the jury and the evidence allowed by the court. The court found that the jury had been adequately instructed and that any mistakes made in the instructions did not affect the final outcome of the trial. While it agreed that the jury was improperly instructed about determining punishment in a bifurcated trial for the misdemeanor charge, it noted that all of his sentences ran concurrently, which reduced the impact of that error. Jones also argued that introducing evidence of his other crimes was unfair, but the court decided that this evidence was relevant and crucial for the jury to understand the context of the case. As for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court ruled that Jones failed to demonstrate how his lawyer's performance was deficient or how it affected the outcome of his trial. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the charges against him and found that his sentences were appropriate, rejecting his claim that they were excessive. Finally, when considering if the combined errors denied him a fair trial, the court decided that the errors did not undermine his conviction, except for vacating the fine of $1,000 for the drug paraphernalia charge. Overall, the court affirmed the convictions for kidnapping and possession of cocaine but made one adjustment regarding the fine for the drug paraphernalia charge due to a procedural issue.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-546, Myron Emanuel Louie appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Myron Louie was originally charged with a more serious crime, but he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. However, after pleading guilty, he wanted to change his mind and withdraw his plea. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison, even after he expressed his desire to withdraw the plea. Louie then filed a motion to officially withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied his request during a hearing. During the appeal, Louie claimed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected how well he was represented. He argued that this made it hard for him to get fair legal help, especially during the hearing to withdraw his plea. The judges explained that a lawyer must represent their client fully and not have any conflicts that could hurt the client’s case. The court agreed that the original lawyer did not handle the motion to withdraw effectively and that this lack of proper representation meant Louie's appeal needed to be looked at again with a new lawyer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. They ordered the case to go back to the original court to appoint a new attorney. The judges also stated that if the new attorney managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, this would be considered a successful outcome in this appeal. But if the motion to withdraw was denied again, all the decisions and details of that hearing would need to be sent back to the appellate court for review. In conclusion, the case was sent back to be re-evaluated with a new lawyer, making it a measurement of fairness and justice for Louie.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-651, Frank Leroy Gibson appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gibson's convictions but modified his sentence on Count I to 25 years of imprisonment instead of Life. One judge dissented regarding the sentencing modification. Gibson was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing drug paraphernalia after a police search of his home. The jury considered various pieces of evidence, including burned pseudoephedrine blister packs and a coffee grinder with traces of the drug. Gibson argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he manufactured methamphetamine, but the court disagreed, stating sufficient circumstantial evidence pointed to his involvement. Gibson also raised concerns about how the jury was instructed regarding a question they had during sentencing discussions. He claimed the response given by the judge was improper. However, the court found that the response did not negatively affect his rights. Another point of appeal involved how the State proved Gibson’s prior felony convictions. Gibson argued that the use of certain documents to establish his past convictions was wrong. The court noted he did not object to this during the trial, so it upheld the use of the documents. Gibson also claimed that his post-arrest silence was mentioned inappropriately during the trial, which could lead to unfair treatment. The court assessed this point and found that the reference did not affect the fairness of the trial overall. Gibson argued that the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial, making inflammatory comments and expressing personal opinions. The court examined these claims and concluded that while some comments by the prosecutor were improper, they did not affect the outcome of the trial. There was also a concern about the trial judge informing the jury that Gibson's attorney was facing criminal charges. The court acknowledged the trial court's comments were poorly chosen but ultimately decided that they did not cause significant harm to Gibson’s case. The court determined that while Gibson's sentence was initially excessive due to the previous errors and comments related to the trial, the evidence of his guilt was strong, and thus reduced his sentence on the methamphetamine charge to 25 years in prison. The possession charge remained unchanged and the sentences were to run concurrently. In conclusion, while Gibson’s convictions were upheld, the court modified his sentence for fairness considering the cumulative effects of the prosecutor's statements and the judge's comments.
In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. J 2011-0475, the appellant appealed his conviction for rape and lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court denying the appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and remanded the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-457, Jacquelin Clariece Alexander appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for one charge, but reversed the revocation for the other charge, sending it back for dismissal. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-131, Darius Darrell Payne appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Payne's convictions on all counts but remanded the matter for a new sentencing proceeding on certain counts due to errors in jury instructions. One judge dissented. The case began when police officers went to a house where Payne was present, looking for a man with an arrest warrant. When they entered, they found illegal drugs, a gun, and cash, leading to Payne's arrest. During the trial, the jury found Payne guilty on multiple charges and set significant punishment for his crimes, including life in prison without the possibility of parole for the drug trafficking offense. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that being punished for both trafficking and failure to obtain a drug tax stamp for the same drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. The court found that the laws allowed for separate punishments, so this argument was rejected. Payne also claimed that the jury wasn't properly instructed about the requirements for his life sentence. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect, leading to a ruling that he should have a new sentencing hearing for this and another charge related to marijuana possession. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court should not have separated the misdemeanor charge regarding drug paraphernalia, which led to a penalty that was likely influenced by prior convictions that weren't relevant for that specific charge. As a result, the court reduced his sentence for possession of paraphernalia from one year to three months. Lastly, there were also some mistakes on the official documents from the trial that needed to be corrected, such as the wrong section numbers and indications of pleading guilty that were factually incorrect. In summary, while Payne's convictions were upheld, the court found that certain errors related to sentencing and jury instructions necessitated further proceedings. The final decision called for changes to some sentences while affirming others.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.