Criminal Appeals

F-2006-669

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-669, Coronado appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not make a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of malicious mischief. The court also found that the restitution amount ordered by the district court was not supported by sufficient evidence, and this part of the case was sent back for proper determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2006-669

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

F-2006-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-110, Gilbert Vega, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (while in the commission of Attempted Robbery with a Firearm). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gilbert Vega, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for the murder of Francisco Hernandez. This murder happened during an attempted robbery at Hernandez's home in Oklahoma City in December 2003. During the trial, the focus was on whether Vega was involved in the incident that led to Hernandez's death. The night of the murder, Hernandez, his girlfriend, and a cousin were in their home when three armed men broke in, threatening them. They physically assaulted the girlfriend and demanded information about money and drugs believed to be in the house. After the attackers had beaten and bound the victims, shots were fired. A neighbor heard the commotion and called for help, but by the time police arrived, Hernandez was dead. Evidence against Vega came mainly from his girlfriend, Rachel Prior. She testified that Vega and his cousin left their home that night intending to rob someone. When Vega returned around 3 a.m., he allegedly threatened her with a gun and described how the robbery went wrong. He claimed to have physically assaulted the girlfriend of the victim and had shot a weapon during the incident. Moments later, police found a gun linked to the crime at Prior's house, and DNA evidence from that gun matched Vega's DNA. In the case, several arguments were debated regarding evidence and trial procedures. Vega's team argued that he was denied a fair trial due to certain evidence being admitted. This included evidence related to a boot print found at the crime scene. The court ruled that these demonstrations were not misleading to the jury and were part of a larger set of evidence against Vega, which included strong DNA evidence. Vega also claimed there were errors in allowing certain evidence about DNA testing from beer bottles found near the crime scene and argued his jury was not properly instructed regarding sentencing rules that could affect his case. However, the court found no significant errors and stated that evidence presented at the trial, including Prior's testimony, was strong enough to support the conviction. Ultimately, while Vega's conviction for murder was upheld, the court determined that he needed to be resentenced.

Continue ReadingF-2006-110

RE 2006-0808

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.

Continue ReadingRE 2006-0808

C-2006-1110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1110

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2005-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.

Continue ReadingF-2005-718

F-2006-429

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2006-429

RE-2007-378

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.

Continue ReadingRE-2007-378

F-2005-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1094

F-2005-1058

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1058

RE-2006-262

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-262

PC 2006-0638

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

Continue ReadingPC 2006-0638

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F-2005-529

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-529

F-2005-859

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-859, Percy Dewayne Cato appealed his conviction for driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions, but modified one of the fines. One judge dissented. Percy Cato was found guilty by a jury for three different offenses. The first was driving under the influence, which was more serious because he had two previous DUI convictions. The jury gave him a punishment that included time in prison and other conditions like treatment and community service. He was sentenced to a total of four and a half years, with some of that time suspended, meaning he would only serve three years in prison and spend time on probation afterwards. Cato claimed the instructions given to the jury about his previous DUI convictions were wrong, saying they should have been told that one of those convictions couldn't be used to give him a harsher punishment. The court found that this mistake did not harm Cato; he still received a fair punishment based on his actions. He also argued that the way his punishment was split between prison time and treatment violated the law. However, the court ruled that this was okay because the law allows for a mix of punishment and rehabilitation for DUI cases. Cato requested that the jury be told how to consider evidence showing he refused to take a breath or blood test. Although the court said this type of instruction is important, they did not find it necessary in Cato's case because he couldn't prove that it affected the outcome of his trial. In summary, the court upheld the main parts of Cato's punishment while making a small change to one of the fines. The decision was mostly in favor of maintaining his convictions, showing the court believed that the jury's decision was fair and just.

Continue ReadingF-2005-859

F-2005-557

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-557

F-2005-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-987

RE-2005-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-863

F-2004-1188

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1188, Daniel Allen Moore appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing due to a jury instruction error. One judge dissented. On June 9, 2003, Daniel Allen Moore shot 24-year-old Garade Jean Girsback in front of a mobile home where she was babysitting. Girsback was related to Moore's wife and had often lived with their family. That evening, Moore hosted a barbecue and was drinking. Witnesses heard him express anger towards Girsback and make threats about killing her. After becoming upset during their conversation, Moore accidentally fired his gun, hitting Girsback. Moore and his wife left without trying to help, and he disposed of the gun. Later, he told a neighbor it was an accident and claimed he only meant to scare Girsback. The main question during the trial was whether Moore had intended to kill Girsback or whether her death was due to recklessness or negligence. The court found that there was an error because the jury was not properly informed about the punishment options for first-degree murder, specifically failing to instruct that life with the possibility of parole was an option. The state agreed this instruction was missed, but they argued it did not affect the outcome because the defense had mentioned the options during closing arguments. The court decided that the jury's confusion could have influenced their decision, especially since they only deliberated briefly before returning a verdict and sentencing Moore to life without parole. Because of this, the case was sent back for a new sentencing hearing with the correct instructions provided to the jury. Additionally, the court addressed other claims by Moore, like the admission of his statements to police. It concluded these statements were allowed for impeachment purposes and did not violate his rights, as they were spontaneous comments. The defendant also argued there was insufficient evidence and that various errors during trial warranted a different outcome, but the court found that while there were errors, they did not combine to affect the fairness of the trial significantly. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but required that the sentencing be done again with proper jury instructions about the punishments available to them.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1188

F-2005-684

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-684, Aaron Christopher Marks appealed his conviction for shooting with intent to kill, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for shooting with intent to kill to forty-five years in prison but upheld the conviction. One judge dissented, arguing that there was no need for sentence modification since the jury likely did not need instruction on parole eligibility and the original sentence was justified based on the evidence presented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-684

F-2004-1229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1229, Jesse Allen Cheshire appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Allen Cheshire was found guilty by a jury of two charges of Child Sexual Abuse in a case from Bryan County. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison for each charge, and these sentences would be served one after the other. Cheshire argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed the crimes. He believed that the evidence was inconsistent and didn't clearly show he was guilty. He claimed this meant his constitutional rights were violated. He also stated that his rights were infringed because two witnesses were allowed to share what the alleged victims said without those children testifying in court. According to the law, he should have been able to confront his accusers directly, which he argued did not happen. Cheshire claimed that the state’s witnesses unfairly supported the credibility of the children’s accusations against him. He also mentioned that a letter from a doctor supporting his defense was wrongly kept out of trial, while other evidence was accepted. After looking at all the ideas presented by Cheshire and the details of the case, the court found that the issue regarding hearsay—where the children’s statements were allowed without them being present—was a serious error. They concluded that this error was not harmless and could have affected the outcome of the trial. They noted that there was some confusion during the case, including the children initially naming someone else as the abuser before changing their statements. Because of this significant issue, the court reversed Cheshire's convictions and ordered a new trial to take place.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1229

F-2005-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-97, Dodson appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wesley Dodson was found guilty by a jury in the district court of a serious crime against two victims. The judge sentenced him to serve a long time in prison, with each count requiring him to stay for fifty years. After Dodson's conviction, he appealed the decision, which means he asked a higher court to review the case to see if there were any mistakes. Dodson raised several important points about why he thought the trial was unfair. First, he believed he did not get a fair jury because one juror was biased and should have been removed. Second, he argued that the court allowed hearsay evidence about children that was not presented correctly and could make the jury think the victims were more credible than they were. Third, he claimed that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to prove he committed the crimes. Lastly, Dodson said that all these errors together made the trial unfair. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Dodson on some key points. They found that there was indeed a biased juror who should have been excused, which took away Dodson's right to have a fair trial. They also agreed that the trial court should have been more careful about the hearsay evidence related to the victims, and that a police officer made comments that suggested the victims were telling the truth when that should have been left for the jury to decide. However, the court thought that there was enough evidence to support the victims' claims, meaning the jury could have reasonably found Dodson guilty based on their testimonies. Since the court found serious issues with how the trial was handled, they decided that Dodson's convictions should be reversed, meaning he would not have to serve the prison sentences handed down from the first trial, and they ordered that a new trial should happen. In summary, the higher court said that Dodson did not receive a fair trial due to certain errors, so they cancelled the previous decision and said there should be another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-97

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737

F 2005-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-281