In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0259, the appellant, Samuel David Murich, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of Murich's suspended sentences was not valid because the State did not prove the finality of the conviction it used to revoke his probation. The court agreed with Murich’s argument and reversed the revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-684, Harold Robert Walker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs (Second Offense), Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana) (Second Offense), and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Walker's participation in the Drug Court program, but it remanded the case to correct sentences that exceeded the maximum punishment allowed by law. One justice dissented on the issue of resentencing.
In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1054, Michael Don Bryant appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bryant's conviction and sentence but ordered that his Judgment and Sentence be corrected to accurately reflect the crime he was convicted of. One judge dissented. Michael Don Bryant had a trial by jury and was found guilty of Grand Larceny in Logan County. He was sentenced to one year in prison and had to pay a fine. After the trial, Bryant appealed, claiming a few mistakes happened during his trial. First, he said that the prosecutor made some unfair comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Bryant believed that the way the prosecutor spoke about his defense was wrong and led the jury to be biased against him. However, the court did not agree that these comments made the trial unfair. Second, he argued that a police officer gave evidence that should not have been allowed in the trial. The officer talked about the surveillance cameras and the cables that were involved in the case. Again, the court found that while the officer's comments might have seemed odd, they did not prove to be a big mistake in the trial. Lastly, Bryant pointed out that there was a problem with the official documents after his trial. The papers said he was convicted of embezzlement, but he was actually found guilty of Grand Larceny. Bryant wanted the court to fix this mistake and to make sure he got credit for time he had already served in jail. The court agreed that there was a mistake in the official documents and sent the case back to fix the paperwork. However, they kept Bryant's conviction and sentence the same.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-287, Jason Harvey Thompson appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a hearing. One judge dissented. Thompson had pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the first charge and one year for the second, which would be served at the same time as the first. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt he did not receive good help from his lawyer when he was negotiating his plea agreement. He also claimed that the court did not properly check if he understood what he was doing when he accepted the plea and that the facts didn’t support his guilty plea. When Thompson asked to withdraw his plea, the trial court denied his request without holding a hearing on it. Thompson then took his case to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, saying that the trial court should have listened to his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The Appeals Court looked at all the information, including the legal rules, and found that the trial court did not follow the required procedures when Thompson wanted to withdraw his plea. According to the rules, the court is required to hold a hearing when someone asks to withdraw a plea, and since this did not happen, the Appeals Court said they needed to send the case back for a hearing. The Appeals Court also addressed an issue with the paperwork related to Thompson's charges, noting that some information in the sentencing document was wrong and needed to be corrected. In conclusion, the Appeals Court granted Thompson's petition, meaning he will get a chance to explain why he wants to withdraw his guilty plea in a new hearing, and they ordered the trial court to fix the sentencing paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-858, Jesus Ceniceros, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug trafficking and distribution. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two of the convictions while affirming the rest. One judge dissented. Jesus Ceniceros was tried and found guilty of eight counts involving illegal drug activities in Pottawatomie County. His charges included serious crimes like aggravated trafficking in illegal drugs, trafficking in illegal drugs, and unlawful distribution of methamphetamine. For these convictions, he received long sentences, some requiring him to serve 85% before being eligible for parole, along with hefty fines. After his trial, Ceniceros raised some points in his appeal. First, he argued that the search warrant used for police to search his home did not follow the rules set by Oklahoma law. However, the court found the warrant was good enough to let the police find the place to search without needing any extra information. Next, Ceniceros suggested that the trafficking and distribution counts should combine into one charge. He claimed he was being punished twice for the same act. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that it wasn’t fair to punish him separately for those charges because they were related to the same crime. Lastly, Ceniceros claimed that the sentences he received were too harsh. The court examined this but found the punishments were acceptable under the law and did not seem overly severe. As a result of these discussions, the court decided to throw out two of his convictions for distribution of controlled dangerous substances but kept the other convictions. The court concluded that his sentences were appropriate and upheld them, stating that the trial judge acted correctly by making the sentences run one after the other instead of at the same time. This summary highlights the main points of the case and the court’s final decisions.
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. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-548, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to properly inform the appellant about the dangers of representing himself. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-545, the State of Oklahoma appealed his conviction for evidence suppression. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order. One judge dissented. The case involved the State of Oklahoma appealing a decision made by a special judge in Cleveland County. The State was unhappy with the judge's ruling to suppress evidence, which they felt was unfair. The main reason for the appeal was that the State believed the judge did not have the right to impose punishment on them for what they claimed was a misunderstanding of the Discovery Code. Essentially, they argued that they had not violated any rules regarding the sharing of evidence and information before the trial. The court had to look at whether the judge's decision was reasonable or if it was clearly wrong. The judges found that the special judge had good reason to impose sanctions on the State because it was determined that the State did not follow the proper procedures for sharing evidence. This is known as discovery. The court highlighted that it is very important in criminal cases for both sides to share information so that there are no surprises during the trial. This process helps ensure fairness and allows both sides to prepare adequately. The court explained that there are rules in place for how evidence should be shared and that these rules are crucial to ensuring justice. The district court had determined that the State should have done more to preserve evidence that could have been useful for the defense. Because they did not do this, the special judge decided to impose penalties on the State as a form of punishment for not following the rules. After reviewing the situation, the court found that the special judge acted within his rights in deciding to sanction the State. As a result, the court affirmed the decision made by the district court in Cleveland County. The judges agreed that enforcing these discovery rules is necessary to avoid similar problems in future cases. So, in the end, the court supported the lower court's ruling by stating that the sanctions against the State were appropriate. This decision encourages the State and other prosecutors to comply with the Discovery Code in future cases, ensuring fair trials for everyone involved.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-495, Marco Lamonte Carroll appealed his conviction for one count of 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 affirm his convictions for Counts 1 and 3 but reverse Count 2 based on double jeopardy grounds. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty in a case related to a drive-by shooting that led to one person's death and another's injury. The evidence indicated that there were multiple guns in the vehicle, and shots were fired from more than one of them. The jury's conclusion that Carroll participated in the incident was deemed sufficient by the court. Carroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence for the charge of Drive-by Shooting, which also supported his Second-Degree Murder conviction. He believed that the merger doctrine should mean his murder charge couldn't be based on the same act that caused the death, meaning his murder conviction should be vacated. He claimed that being convicted of both murder and using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting violated double jeopardy laws, which protect from being tried for the same crime twice. Finally, he argued that the trial court wrongly refused to give him credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. After looking closely at all the arguments and the case records, the court upheld Carroll's convictions for Second Degree Murder and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm related to the second shooting incident. However, they agreed that counting the charge for the first shooting incident separately violated double jeopardy principles, leading to the reversal of that conviction. Overall, while Carroll's main murder conviction and the second vehicle charge were confirmed, the charge of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm from the first shooting was dismissed. The court concluded that the trial judge had functioned properly regarding the defendant's time served and did not find grounds to change that part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-249, the appellant appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and causing an accident resulting in great bodily injury while driving under the influence. In a published decision, the court decided that the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion and modified the sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-70, Christopher Stinson, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Arson, and Manufacturing Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the Felony Murder charge and reverse the Manufacturing charge, stating it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-819, Joshua Dee Taylor appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery in Presence of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of three years of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Joshua Dee Taylor was sentenced for two crimes: one serious and one misdemeanor. These were combined into a single sentence where he was supposed to serve time in prison but was allowed to stay out under certain rules, like not leaving Oklahoma without permission and taking his medication. However, he got into trouble after the state said he broke the rules of his probation. The state said Taylor didn’t report to his probation officer, left the state without permission, didn’t pay required fees, and had trouble with taking his medications. Because of these violations, the court held a hearing and decided that he had indeed violated the rules. The judge revoked part of his probation, taking away three years of his suspended sentence. In his appeal, Taylor claimed the judge made mistakes in deciding to revoke his probation. He argued that the written order did not match what the judge said in court and that the judge unfairly included conditions that were not agreed upon verbally. He also claimed the decision to revoke was unreasonable because his mental state made it hard for him to follow the instructions. Taylor said he could not pay the probation fees and that there were many errors made during his case. The court looked closely at his arguments. They noticed that there was an error in the written order compared to what was said in court and suggested the lower court fix this. However, they decided that even with this error, the other reasons for revoking his probation were valid, and he still broke the rules by not complying. Even though they acknowledged his points about medication and fees, they agreed that other violations were enough to support the judge’s decision to revoke his probation. They stated that he understood the rules but chose not to follow them. The appeal resulted in the court affirming the revocation while instructing the lower court to correct the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-547, Berry appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold Berry's conviction for Lewd Molestation but reversed his conviction for Kidnapping. One member of the court dissented. Berry was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping in Tulsa County. The case involved a two-year-old girl who wandered away from her home and encountered Berry. Witnesses saw Berry beckon the girl to his truck, pick her up, and drive away. Police later found the girl in Berry's truck, seemingly unresponsive, although no definitive physical harm or evidence of sexual assault was found. Berry argued that he should not have been punished for both crimes because the acts of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping were connected and arose from the same action. The court agreed that the crimes involved the same incident when Berry took the girl, thus violating Oklahoma's law against double punishment. They affirmed the Lewd Molestation conviction but reversed the Kidnapping conviction, indicating the offenses were inseparable in this instance. One judge disagreed, believing that the Kidnapping and Lewd Molestation were distinct, separate crimes, and thus both should stand.