In OCCA case No. F-2009-1110, Twilia Renae Wise appealed her conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented, believing that the case should not be remanded for a new trial without further review.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1145, Robert Lee Peace appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-914, Mark Wayne Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Wayne Johnson was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a fine. He believed that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial. Johnson pointed out that his lawyer failed to bring in expert witnesses who could have helped his case and also did not challenge important evidence properly. Johnson raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that the trial judge acted unfairly by scolding his lawyer in front of the jury. This made Johnson feel that he did not get a fair trial. He also argued that important evidence and witness credibility were not handled properly by the trial court, and that numerous mistakes made by his lawyer affected the outcome of the trial. The court reviewed these claims and found that there were many significant errors in how Johnson was represented. The judges said that Johnson's lawyer did not cross-examine witnesses properly or address inconsistencies in the testimonies. They concluded that all these mistakes could have changed the trial's outcome, meaning Johnson did not receive the fair trial he deserved. As a result of these findings, the court reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-58, Alishia Faith Mackey appealed her conviction for permitting child abuse and failure to report child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction for permitting child abuse but vacated her conviction for failure to report child abuse. One judge dissented regarding the double punishment issue. Mackey was found guilty by a jury of allowing child abuse to happen and not reporting it. The jury said she should go to prison for twenty years for permitting the abuse and fined her $500 for failing to report it. Mackey argued that the trial had many mistakes, including that a child testified behind a screen without enough evidence to justify it, the jury wasn't properly instructed on possible defenses, and her lawyer didn't do a good job. She believed the sentences were too harsh and that all the errors added up to make her trial unfair. The court looked at each claim. It found that not allowing the child to confront Mackey face-to-face was a mistake, but it was not serious enough to change the outcome since there was a lot of other evidence against her. The court also said that there was no need to instruct the jury on a defense of duress because there was no proof that she was forced to allow the abuse. Additionally, they decided that while the jury didn't get instructions on another defense, it didn't matter because Mackey wasn't charged under that law. For the claims about not being allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses, the court said those decisions were fair and didn't break any rules. They determined that having both convictions didn’t go against laws against double punishment; however, since the two charges came from the same event, she should only receive one punishment. Overall, the court found that while some things in the trial were wrong, they did not change the fact that Mackey was guilty of permitting child abuse. They decided that the punishment for failing to report the abuse should be taken away since it was unfair to punish her twice for the same act. The final decision left her conviction for permitting child abuse in place but removed her conviction for failure to report. The judges had differing opinions on some points, particularly on whether both charges should stand, but the main ruling agreed that her punishment for the failure to report should not continue.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-874, Leroy Mitchell, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Leroy Mitchell, Jr. was found guilty of a serious crime after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but five of those years were suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that time unless he got into trouble again. Mitchell believed there were problems during his trial and decided to appeal. He had several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that some statements made during the trial were unfair because they were hearsay. Hearsay is when someone repeats what another person said rather than saying what they directly experienced. In Mitchell's case, he felt that the way the hearsay was used violated his rights, particularly his right to confront witnesses against him. Also, he claimed that some of the evidence presented in court was unreliable and that he did not have a fair chance to defend himself. He worried that the evidence related to other crimes might have influenced the judge unfairly. Mitchell also said that his lawyer did not perform well during the trial, which led to more problems. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Mitchell's rights were not properly protected during the trial. Specifically, they found that the court allowed too much hearsay without the necessary checks to ensure it was reliable. This made it hard to believe the outcome of the trial was fair. As a result, the court decided to reverse the original judgment and said that Mitchell deserves another trial where these issues can be addressed properly.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-320, Duncan appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Duncan was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter in Pushmataha County, and he was sentenced to four years in prison, with the last year suspended. He argued that his trial had several problems that made it unfair, including issues with witness testimony and jury instructions. The main issue in Duncan's appeal was that a doctor’s assistant’s testimony from a preliminary hearing was used at the trial, even though the assistant did not appear in person to be questioned. Duncan claimed this was wrong because he did not get a chance to confront the assistant and ask him questions. The court agreed with Duncan, stating that it is important for a defendant to see and question witnesses in person to ensure a fair trial. The court pointed out that the rules used to allow the assistant's testimony did not apply to criminal trials, and therefore, the testimony should not have been part of the evidence. The absence of this testimony was significant enough that it could have affected the trial's outcome. Because of this error, Duncan's conviction was overturned, and the court ordered a new trial, meaning Duncan will have the chance to defend himself again in court. The court decided not to consider other arguments Duncan made since the first issue was enough to reverse the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-288, George Luther Carter, III appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Carter was accused of sexually abusing a child and was found guilty by a jury. They decided he should spend thirty years in prison for this crime. After the trial, Carter appealed, arguing that the trial court made several mistakes. Carter's main reasons for appealing included that the court should not have allowed evidence of other alleged crimes he had committed, and that the use of a videotape during the trial was not fair. He also believed the verdict was not supported well by the evidence. The court looked closely at these points and decided that admitting the evidence of the other alleged crime was a mistake. The evidence did not clearly connect to the case at hand and could have unfairly influenced the jury's decision. Since the court was not sure that this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial, they decided to grant Carter a new trial. In summary, Carter’s conviction was reversed because the trial court allowed improper evidence that could have affected the jury's verdict. The remaining arguments did not need to be discussed since the first point was enough for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-524, Robert Scott Pebbles appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Pebbles had pled guilty to the charge as part of a plea agreement and was given a five-year suspended sentence. However, he later claimed that his attorney pressured him into pleading guilty. He stated that he did not understand the requirements of his probation and was misled about the possible consequences of his plea, including a misunderstanding of the maximum punishment for his crime. During a hearing about his motion to withdraw the plea, Pebbles testified that his attorney had told him he could face the death penalty for the rape charge. The court found that the plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily because Pebbles had been misadvised about the range of punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional, which means Pebbles could not face such a punishment. The court reviewed affidavits from attorneys involved in the case that supported Pebbles' claim of being misadvised. The Attorney General acknowledged Pebbles was indeed not eligible for the death penalty for rape. As a result of these findings, the court decided that Pebbles' guilty plea should be withdrawn. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.
In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1261, Ronnie Odell Gargus appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation, five counts of Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gargus' convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Gargus was found guilty of serious sexual offenses against a child. The jury decided on lengthy prison sentences for each count, totaling a significant amount of time in prison. Gargus raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should have been allowed to ask the State's expert witness about any bias in his testimony against Gargus. The court acknowledged that usually, a witness cannot be questioned about their past arrests if there was no conviction. However, the court agreed that there are times when it is important to explore a witness’s potential bias, especially if the witness has pending criminal issues. Despite this, the court found that excluding the questioning about the expert's bias did not change the outcome of the case since there was also strong evidence against Gargus, including the child’s own credible testimony. Second, Gargus claimed he was not properly informed before the court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The court noted that Gargus did not raise this issue during the trial. However, they agreed that the amount of restitution was not clearly supported by evidence, and that needed to be corrected. The court ordered a new hearing to determine the correct amount that Gargus should pay. Overall, the court upheld the convictions and long sentences but recognized that some legal issues concerning restitution needed further attention. They will have a new hearing to ensure the restitution amount is fair and based on proper evidence.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1078, Joseph Lee Rick Knight appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. However, it ordered a remand to the District Court of Creek County to vacate certain costs associated with the charges for which Knight was acquitted or not prosecuted. One judge dissented. Joseph Knight was found guilty after a bench trial, which means there was no jury, and the judge made the decision. The trial took place over several days, and Knight was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with nine years to be served and the rest suspended. Knight argued four main points in his appeal. First, he said that his arrest and the search of his home were not done lawfully. The court disagreed, stating that the search was allowed because Knight's wife gave permission, meaning the police did not need a warrant. Secondly, Knight claimed that he did not truly understand what it meant to give up his right to a jury trial. The court found that he had given up this right knowingly, so this point was also denied. The third point Knight made was that he could not cross-examine his co-defendant, whose statements were used against him. The court decided this was not a problem because the judge said those statements would only be considered for the co-defendant. Lastly, Knight believed that his sentence was too harsh. The court said the sentence was appropriate based on the laws and did not seem unfair. In summary, the court upheld Knight's conviction and kept his sentence the same but ordered some of the costs to be canceled because he was not convicted on all charges.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-269, Edward Lee Cox, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with Firearms, and Larceny of an Automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction for Robbery with Firearms should be reversed and dismissed, while the convictions for the other two counts were affirmed. One judge dissented.