Criminal Appeals

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440

C-2005-1208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1208

F 2005-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.

Continue ReadingF 2005-522

F-2005-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-232, Timothy Mark Dunivan appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for child abuse but affirmed the convictions for sexually abusing a minor. One judge dissented. To explain a little more, Timothy was found guilty of hurting and abusing his minor daughter in serious ways over several years. The case involved very serious charges, and a jury in Tulsa County agreed with the accusations against him. As a result, he was sentenced to many years in prison and also had to pay fines. Timothy argued that he should not have been charged because too much time had passed since the crimes occurred. He believed that the law didn't apply in his case due to what is called the statute of limitations. However, the court found that for the sexual abuse charges, the time limit to charge him was still valid, so those charges stuck. On the other hand, for the child abuse charges, they decided that quite a bit of time had passed, and so those charges were dropped. Throughout this process, there was a lot of discussion about the laws and how they applied to the case. The court also looked at the evidence provided during the trial and found that it was indeed acceptable to use some evidence from before the time period in which he was charged to show a pattern of behavior. In the end, while Timothy's very serious sentence for abusing his daughter stayed, he ended up having fewer charges against him after the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2005-232

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F 2005-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.

Continue ReadingF 2005-651

F-2004-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

Continue ReadingF-2004-767

F 2004-1305

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1305

RE 2005-0315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0315, #Matthews appealed his conviction for #Burglary. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to vacate the two-year sentence imposed in CF-1999-365, affirm the acceleration of the deferred sentence in CF-2003-14, and affirm the termination from Drug Court. #None dissented. Kevin Paul Matthews got into trouble with the law a while back. He pled no contest to a charge for running a roadblock and was given a sentence where he didn’t have to spend much time in prison right away. Instead, he was supposed to follow certain rules and help the community. However, he later messed up by not completing his required community service. Then, he got into even more trouble and pleaded guilty to burglary, agreeing to join a special program called Drug Court instead of going straight to prison. This program was meant to help him get better. But after some time, the State said he wasn’t following the rules and asked the judge to send him to prison instead. The judge agreed and decided Matthews needed to go to prison for more time, ruling that any previous time he served didn’t count towards his new sentence. Matthews felt that the judge made mistakes and that he shouldn't have been punished as harshly as he was. Matthews brought his case to a higher court, saying the judge didn't have the right to put him back in prison for the earlier offense because too much time had passed. He also said the judge shouldn’t have made him wait so long without setting an end date to his drug treatment program. Ultimately, the higher court agreed that the judge had made an error in punishing Matthews without accounting for the time he had already served. However, they kept the part where Matthews had to go to prison for his burglary charge because he had failed to follow the rules of the Drug Court. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for more review about what should happen next. So, in the end, Matthews got relief on some of his issues, but not all, showing that while he had some rights, he still needed to take responsibility for his actions.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0315

F-2004-682

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-682

F-2005-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2005-129

C-2005-493

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-493, Billy D. Stout appealed his conviction for violating the Sex Offenders Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Stout the right to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Stout had pleaded guilty to not registering as a sex offender. He was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5000. However, Stout later argued that he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, especially because he could not read or write. After leaving jail, he was not properly informed that he needed to register whenever he moved to a new place. Stout said that when he was released from jail, he received paperwork that he could not read, and no one explained to him that he had to register. Although Stout eventually registered once he understood the requirement, he faced charges for not having registered earlier. The court found that Stout's plea was not made willingly and that there was no clear reason to support the plea in the first place. Stout's lawyer did not present any strong arguments during the plea withdrawal hearing, and it seemed they did not understand the law themselves. The court noted that the lack of help Stout received from his lawyer contributed to his confusion and affected his ability to make a fully informed decision about his plea. Overall, the judges concluded that Stout's case should be revisited, and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and possibly go to trial. The law encourages trying cases in court rather than accepting a guilty plea without a fair understanding.

Continue ReadingC-2005-493

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2005-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-619

F 2004-1238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1238, James Alan Wade appealed his conviction for Embezzlement of Rented Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Mr. Wade was found guilty by a jury of embezzling a rented car and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove his prior felony convictions and that his sentence was too harsh. He also argued that his lawyer didn’t do enough to protect his rights during the trial. The court looked closely at whether there was enough proof that Mr. Wade had committed the crime he was accused of. One key point was whether the car he rented was valued correctly according to the law. The court found that the prosecution didn't provide evidence proving the car's value was over $1,000, which is necessary for the embezzlement charge. Because of this lack of evidence, the court decided that Mr. Wade should not have been convicted and ordered that the case be dismissed. The dissenting judge, however, thought that there was enough evidence for the jury to make their decision and believed the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1238

RE-2004-1033

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1033, Wren appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified the length of her imprisonment. One judge dissented. Wren had originally been sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended based on her agreeing to probation terms after entering a nolo contendere plea. She did not follow the rules of her probation on several occasions, which led to her first violation and a thirty-day jail sentence. Eventually, the state filed a second motion to revoke her suspended sentence after she failed drug tests and did not pay court costs. Even after a treatment program, Wren continued to use methamphetamine. When the court determined that she had broken her probation rules again, it revoked her suspended sentence entirely. However, Wren argued that her full sentence shouldn't be four years since part of it had already been executed with her previous thirty-day incarceration. The court agreed that the final sentence was actually longer than it should have been and modified the length to reflect the time she had already served. In the end, the court affirmed the revocation of her suspended sentence but adjusted the total imprisonment time to account for her earlier time served, confirming that she needs to serve three years and three hundred thirty-five days of her sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-1033

F-2004-1106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-04-1106, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful trafficking in cocaine base, amongst other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the fine associated with one of the charges. One judge dissented. Armstrong was found guilty of a series of crimes, including trafficking drugs and resisting arrest. He argued that there were mistakes made during his trial, such as the jury being instructed on two counts of resisting arrest when he believed there should only be one. He also claimed that his attorney didn’t provide enough evidence to support his case effectively. He asked the court to reduce his sentences and fine. After reviewing everything about the case, the court felt that there was no need to overturn the convictions. However, they agreed to reduce the fine related to his drug trafficking charge from $25,000 to $10,000. The court found that the evidence and decisions made during the trial were legally sound. In summary, while Armstrong’s appeal raised several issues, the court mostly found in favor of the original trial's outcome, except for the adjustment of the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1106

S-2005-657

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.

Continue ReadingS-2005-657

F 2004-989

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.

Continue ReadingF 2004-989

RE-2004-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-1015

F-2004-389

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-389, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery by force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved James Stephen Richardson, who was found guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $1500. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this impacted his defense. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge a juror, did not question how he was identified by the victims, and did not find evidence that could help prove he was innocent. The court looked into Richardson's claims and decided to hold a special hearing to investigate his last point about ineffective assistance of counsel. During this hearing, it was revealed that there were certain jail policies regarding the clothing of inmates that were not properly investigated by Richardson’s attorney. The evidence showed that the items of clothing could not be released under the jail's rules, which could have helped Richardson’s case. The district court agreed that the lawyer did not conduct a reasonable investigation about this clothing policy. Because of this failure, the judge believed that the defense had a weaker case and that if this information had been presented, the outcome of the trial could have been different. The court decided that Richardson's attorney did not provide adequate legal help, which is why they reversed the original judgment. In summary, Richardson's case was sent back for a new trial because the court found that his lawyer did not do enough to support his defense, particularly regarding important evidence about the clothing policy at the jail.

Continue ReadingF-2004-389

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582

F-2004-1112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1112

C-2004-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-850, the petitioner appealed her conviction for five crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for most of the convictions, but they did reverse and dismiss one misdemeanor count. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2004-850