Crime

F-2017-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-336, Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Bea Ann Epperson was found guilty in a trial without a jury for embezzling money related to a building trust. She was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, but her sentences were suspended, meaning she wouldn’t serve time unless she violated certain conditions. Epperson believed that the court did not have the right to try her case because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation, and the victims might be part of the Creek Nation, with the crimes happening on Creek Reservation land. This argument was connected to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which deals with whether certain areas are considered Indian Country. The questions involved were Epperson's Indian status, the status of the victims, and the location of the crimes. Because these questions needed more fact-finding, the case was sent back to the District Court. At a hearing to gather more details, it was determined that Epperson had some Indian blood (3/64th degree) and was recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation. It was also confirmed that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The court accepted these agreements made by both sides regarding what the evidence would show. In a later brief, the State supported the District Court’s findings, but wanted time to consider whether to file new charges against Epperson. After reviewing everything, the court agreed Epperson had shown she was an Indian and that the crimes happened in Indian Country, thus the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to try her. The court reversed the judgment of Epperson's convictions and sent the case back to be dismissed, meaning she wouldn't face charges for the embezzlement anymore.

Continue ReadingF-2017-336

C-2018-943

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

Continue ReadingC-2018-943

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

S-2011-774

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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.

Continue ReadingS-2011-774