Criminal Appeals

RE-2013-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-887, Collins appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Here's a brief summary of the case: Mark Stephen Collins was charged with having child pornography in 2010. He pleaded no contest and was given a five-year sentence, with a part of it suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it in prison if he followed certain rules. However, in 2013, he broke those rules in several ways, like failing drug tests, not attending counseling, and refusing to meet with his supervising officer. Because of this, the state asked to make him serve his whole sentence. During a hearing about the violations, the judge decided it was fair to revoke his suspended sentence because Collins had admitted to breaking the rules. Collins argued that the judge was too harsh in revoking his sentence and that his actions were due to his drug addiction. The court explained that it doesn’t have to be proven that all rules were broken, just that at least one was. Collins also believed that the judge should not have added a year of post-imprisonment supervision after revoking his sentence since it would be a longer punishment than what was originally given. The law allows a judge to require supervision after imprisonment, but the court found that the judge was not allowed to impose it in this situation because it was not part of Collins’ original sentence. In the end, the court agreed with most of the judge's decision to revoke the sentence due to the violations but took away the additional year of supervision because it was not permitted. The case was sent back to the lower court to issue a new order that matched the court's ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-887

C-2013-730

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2013-730

F-2013-801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2013-801

F-2012-1029

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1029, Dustin Kyle Martin appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and Accessory to Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Martin's conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder but reversed the conviction for Accessory to Second Degree Murder, with instructions to dismiss that count. One judge dissented regarding the classification of being a principal and an accessory to the same crime. Martin was found guilty of both murder and being an accessory, which raised questions about whether one person can be convicted of both for the same crime. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, a person involved in a crime can be considered either a principal or an accessory, but cannot be both for the same offense. The trial court made an error by allowing the accessory charge to remain when Martin was already convicted of murder. During the trial, Martin's lawyers pointed out that he was convicted as a principal for the murder, so being convicted as an accessory to the same murder didn't make sense legally. The prosecution agreed that this was an error. Thus, the court decided to reverse the accessory conviction but kept the murder conviction intact. Martin also argued that there were many other problems during the trial, including mistakes in the jury instructions and the admission of prejudicial evidence, but the court found that these issues either did not affect the verdict or were harmless errors. The judges considered everything and concluded that the conviction for felony murder was supported by enough evidence, while the evidence wasn’t sufficient to support him being an accessory. In summary, the final decision of the court affirmed the murder conviction, while the accessory conviction was dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2012-1029

S-2013-695

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.

Continue ReadingS-2013-695

F 2012-1131

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-1131, Antonio Herman Cervantes appealed his conviction for sixty-nine counts of child sexual abuse and one count of child physical abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court while ordering the correction of the sentencing documentation. One judge dissented. Cervantes was found guilty of serious crimes against children and received a significant prison sentence of forty years for each count. The court decided that some counts would be served concurrently, while others would be served consecutively. This meant that Cervantes would spend a long time in prison before being eligible for parole. Cervantes raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the jury instructions at his trial were not correct, but the court found that these instructions were adequate since there were no objections made at the trial. Therefore, the court only looked for plain errors and did not find any. Next, Cervantes claimed that many of his convictions should not have happened because they involved double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence showed these were separate acts that could be considered individual offenses. Cervantes also thought that the trial judge did not treat him fairly. Yet, since there were no objections to any of the judge's comments during the trial, the court reviewed these comments and concluded that they did not show bias against Cervantes. He further claimed that he was denied a speedy trial. The court reviewed the reasons for trial delays, noting that they mostly stemmed from issues with his defense attorneys and were not caused by the state. The court decided that the delays were not a violation of his rights because he did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the wait. Cervantes also argued that there were mistakes in how his previous convictions were presented during the trial, but he did not raise objections when the evidence was introduced, so the court did not find any reversible error. Another point he raised was that the written judgment did not match what was said in court regarding his sentence. The court agreed that his sentencing documents needed to be corrected to reflect the proper orders given during the trial. Cervantes also suggested that his lawyer did not provide effective assistance because he failed to complain about certain aspects during the trial. However, the court found that there was no evidence of how this alleged absence of support affected the outcome of his case. He also noted instances of what he thought was misconduct by the prosecution but concluded that overall, he was not denied a fair trial due to these points. The court found that his sentences were appropriate and did not see any major errors that would warrant changing its earlier decisions. Finally, the court ruled that there was no cumulative effect of errors since no individual error was found to be significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, the court affirmed the conviction while ordering the necessary corrections in the documentation of the sentence.

Continue ReadingF 2012-1131

RE-2012-0835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-0835

RE 2013-0511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0511

RE-2013-212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-212

F-2013-11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.

Continue ReadingF-2013-11

F-2012-732

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2012-732

RE-2012-1032

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1032

RE-2013-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-279, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the revocation hearing within the required twenty days after the appellant entered his plea. The decision was made without needing to address the other arguments raised by the appellant. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-279

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingM-2012-416

F-2012-1039

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1039, Earnest Toby Bearshead appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm but reversed his conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Bearshead was found guilty of two crimes: Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. The jury decided he should go to prison for nine years for the robbery and five years for the false personation. The sentences would be served one after the other. Bearshead did not argue against the robbery conviction but did challenge the false personation conviction based on three main issues. First, Bearshead claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed false personation. The law says that to be guilty of false personation, a person has to pretend to be someone else and do something that could cause that person to face legal issues or gain some benefit. Bearshead argued that since a video of him talking to the police was not officially accepted as evidence, he could not be said to have assumed another person's identity. Despite this claim, the court found that Bearshead had indeed provided evidence of using a false name when talking to the police. A detective testified that Bearshead initially said his name was “Oscar” and later corrected it to “Toby.” The detective had noted this on a form, showing that Bearshead tried to lie about his identity. The second point Bearshead raised was that even if he did use a false name, he did not do anything to get someone else in trouble, as there were no legal issues connected to the name Oscar Bearshead. The State argued he would have benefitted in some way, such as avoiding responsibility for the robbery. However, there was no evidence that showed Bearshead actually gained anything from pretending to be Oscar. He still faced the charges and was found guilty of the robbery. The court pointed out that Bearshead's jury was not instructed about the possibility of benefiting from using a false name, which was necessary for proving false personation in this case. Without clear evidence that he gained any benefits from the impersonation, the court decided the State did not meet the burden of proving all parts of the crime. As a result, the court reversed Bearshead's conviction for False Personation and ordered it to be dismissed. However, his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm stood, and he would still serve the sentence related to that crime. The decision led to one judge expressing a different opinion from the others.

Continue ReadingF-2012-1039

F-2012-478

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-478, Michael Ray Baack appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court while remanding the case to correct the judgment regarding the fine on Count 1. One member of the court dissented. Michael Ray Baack was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for having controlled substances and for being publicly intoxicated. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison and pay a $2,000 fine for the drug charge, along with thirty days in jail for public intoxication. The judge ordered both sentences to be served one after the other but waived the fine on the drug charge. Baack raised several questions on appeal. He argued about the evidence being enough to convict him of the drug charge, how other crimes were presented during the trial, the lack of instructions on a lesser drug offense, the fine, and whether his sentence was too harsh. 1. The court found that the evidence showed Baack had knowingly possessed drugs. The jury had enough proof to make a logical decision based on the facts presented. 2. About the other crimes evidence, the court mentioned that Baack had introduced his prior record himself, so he could not complain about that during the appeal since it was his choice to bring it up. 3. Baack's request for a lower charge on drug paraphernalia was not granted because he claimed he was innocent. The court said that when someone claims they did not do something, they cannot ask for lesser charges. 4. The fine for the drug charge was waived, and both Baack and the state agreed that the case should go back to the lower court to correct the documents to show there was no fine. 5. The claim that Baack was hurt by showing his previous felony conviction was denied because it did not affect the outcome of the case. The court stated that the sentences were appropriate and followed the law. In conclusion, the court upheld the findings of the lower court and noted there was no need for a new trial or changes to the verdicts, except for correcting the issue with the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2012-478

F-2011-1059

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1059, Cristopher Lyn Kibbe appealed his conviction for various crimes, including Attempted Second Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, Driving with a Revoked License, and Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the second and third counts, but modify the sentence on the attempted burglary to ten years. One judge dissented. Kibbe was found guilty by a jury and received a twenty-year sentence for each of the first two counts, while a fine of $100 was imposed for driving with a revoked license. His trial raised several issues related to judicial conduct and evidence. First, Kibbe argued that his trial was shaped unfairly by improper comments or testimonies from the prosecution. He claimed that a police officer made prejudicial remarks. However, the court found that the trial judge acted appropriately by not ordering a mistrial, as the errors cited were not fundamentally harmful to the fairness of the trial. Second, Kibbe contended that the evidence presented was not enough to support the jury's decision. The court determined that the testimony from his accomplice was properly corroborated and sufficient to justify the jury's verdicts. Kibbe also claimed that he was denied his right to present a full defense. Parts of his statements to police were not allowed into evidence. However, the court noted that many of Kibbe's exculpatory statements were presented before the jury, so it was unclear if additional statements would have made a difference. The appeal included complaints about evidence used during the sentencing phase. Kibbe's prior convictions were mentioned, and he argued that they should not have been because they were from similar transactions. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow those convictions as proper evidence for sentencing enhancement. Kibbe's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were largely dismissed as well. Although he pointed out several alleged wrongdoings by the prosecutor, the court found that the arguments did not amount to significant error. Ultimately, the court modified Kibbe's sentence on one of the counts due to a clear legal error regarding the length of the sentence. The court reduced this sentence from twenty years to ten years, which adhered to statutory guidelines. The court did not find that the cumulative errors impacted Kibbe’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, most of his convictions and sentences were upheld. The decision was to confirm the judgment on Counts 2 and 3, and modify the sentence on Count 1.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1059

F-2012-721

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-721, Deshaunte Devon Coulter appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Coulter's conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, directing a new determination of the victim’s loss. One judge dissented. Coulter was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison, along with an order to pay $2,300 in restitution. He raised several issues on appeal, including claims of unfair trial due to the admission of other crimes evidence, DNA evidence issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentencing. The court looked closely at each of Coulter’s arguments. For the first claim about other crimes evidence, the court found there was no actual error because the officers’ testimonies did not specifically reference other crimes involving Coulter. Since Coulter did not challenge this during the trial, he could only appeal on the grounds of plain error, which the court ruled did not occur. In the second argument about DNA evidence, the court noted that Coulter had not shown that the State had erred. The evidence was timely provided, and the court did not find a Brady violation regarding the lack of lab notes since Coulter did not request them in time. For the third claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that there was no actual error. The prosecutor’s comments during the trial were not improper, and thus did not violate Coulter's rights. In the fourth argument, regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court concluded that the sentence fell within the legal limit and was not shockingly inappropriate under the circumstances. In the fifth claim, which concerned the assessment of restitution, the court found that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. The evidence presented at the sentencing didn’t adequately prove the victim's financial losses, so the restitution order was vacated. Finally, Coulter claimed that the cumulative effect of all errors deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found that wasn't the case. The decision affirmed Coulter's conviction and sentence while remanding the restitution matter for proper evaluation.

Continue ReadingF-2012-721

F-2012-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-567

RE 2012-0711

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0711

F-2011-661

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-661, Mark Tracey Vernon appealed his conviction for five counts of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Vernon had been found guilty in a non-jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape charges and twenty years for the sodomy charge, with the sentences to be served one after another. Initially, he faced fourteen counts of rape and five of sodomy, but some were dismissed or he was acquitted of others during the trial. Vernon claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to ineffective assistance from his lawyer. The court agreed and found that his defense attorney did not present important evidence that could have helped Vernon. This included failing to interview a witness who might have provided helpful information and not questioning the investigating officer about past allegations against one of the victims. The court noted that these mistakes were not part of a reasonable trial strategy. After reviewing the trial and additional evidence presented during a hearing, the court decided that Vernon's lawyer's performance was inadequate. Because of this, they believed that the trial's outcome could have been different if the mistakes had not happened. Vernon's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial to ensure that he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2011-661

F-2012-916

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-916, Andrew Lee Harris appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of McCurtain County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. One judge dissented. Andrew Lee Harris was found guilty on charges for having cocaine. His punishment was set at thirty years, but he did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal. During the appeal, he argued that: 1. The jury wasn't given the right instructions about possession of paraphernalia, which he thought was unfair. 2. The prosecutor gave improper evidence and made comments that affected the fairness of his sentencing. 3. The trial court did not follow required procedures in his case. The court analyzed these claims carefully. In the first point, they decided that the jury did not need to be told about possession of paraphernalia because it was not a lesser included offense of cocaine possession. This means it was a separate crime, and the judge was right not to give those instructions. In his second point, the court looked at the information that was presented during the trial. They said there were some mistakes with what was allowed as evidence. A former probation officer talked about Harris's past, which shouldn't have been mentioned because it could make the jury think about parole and probation unfairly when deciding his sentence. The court found that this could have influenced the jury, especially since they asked questions about how long Harris would be on parole. Therefore, they decided that because of this, it was necessary to reduce his sentence to twenty years. As for the third point, the court felt that the way the trial judge handled certain procedures was not a problem anymore because they had already decided to change Harris's sentence based on the earlier mistake. In the end, the court agreed with Harris’s reasoning about how he should have been sentenced, leading them to change his punishment. They affirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to twenty years in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2012-916

RE 2012-0575

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0575, Greenlow appealed his conviction for several offenses, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and false impersonation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Greenlow's suspended sentences but ordered a remand to modify one of his sentences due to it being longer than the law allows. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0575

F-2011-473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2011-473