Dissent

F-2017-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1000, Sonny Raye McCombs appealed his conviction for several crimes including robbery, using a vehicle in a crime, possessing a firearm, larceny, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and dismiss the case. McCombs argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over his case because he is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the crimes happened on Native American land, which is called Indian Country. The court agreed that the State of Oklahoma could not prosecute him for these crimes because of the legal rulings made in earlier cases regarding Indian rights and territories. The majority of the judges emphasized that the crimes took place in areas still recognized as part of Indian Country, leading to the conclusion that the state lacked the authority to prosecute him. One judge dissented, expressing concerns over the majority opinion and its implications for federal and state law relationship.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1000

F-2017-970

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-970, Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes including drug possession and obstruction of an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court’s decision to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentence because she had violated probation by failing to pay required fees. One judge dissented, arguing that she was not willfully failing to pay because she had been declared indigent in court and there was no inquiry into her ability to pay.

Continue ReadingF-2017-970

S-2014-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.

Continue ReadingS-2014-786

RE-2011-710

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.

Continue ReadingRE-2011-710

F-2011-1019

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1019, Timmy Howard Dickey appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction to Incest instead. Two judges dissented. Timmy Howard Dickey was tried by a jury and found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse. The trial occurred in the District Court of Caddo County, and the judge sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Dickey was charged with having sex with his 17-year-old niece, B.D. The charges came to light when B.D. reported to the police that Dickey had raped her. Dickey's main argument on appeal was about the definition of a person responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of a child. He claimed that the court didn't have enough evidence to show that he was in a position of responsibility for B.D. at the time of the incident, which was necessary for a conviction of Child Sexual Abuse according to the law. The court agreed with Dickey’s argument, stating that there wasn't enough proof that he was a custodian as defined by the law. The law categorized those responsible for a child’s welfare, and the court found that Dickey did not fit into these categories like parents or legal guardians do. Since the legal definition of custodian requires formal authority granted by a court, and Dickey did not have such authority, the court found his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse could not stand. Even though they found insufficient evidence for that specific charge, the court acknowledged that Dickey did commit a serious crime against B.D. They indicated that it would be more fitting to change his conviction to Incest, recognizing that Dickey admitted to having consensual sex with B.D. during an interview after the incident. Ultimately, the court decided to change Dickey's conviction from Child Sexual Abuse to Incest but kept the sentence at 5 years of imprisonment. The decision was made to send a strong message about the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Dickey's charge was modified to recognize the seriousness of his actions, but technically, he was incorrectly charged at first. The judges had different opinions on the case, with two of them disagreeing with the court's decision to alter the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1019

C-2008-273

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-273, Charles Bert Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Jones the ability to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Jones entered a guilty plea for serious charges in the Oklahoma County court. The judge gave him life sentences for some counts and a ten-year sentence for another, but his requests to change this were denied. The main issue was whether he made his guilty plea knowingly, which means he understood what he was doing. The court found that there was enough evidence to say that Jones was misled by his attorney, who suggested he would get a better sentence than what the judge actually imposed. Because of this situation, the court ruled that Jones should be allowed to undo his plea and have a new trial. They ordered his case to be handled by a different judge to avoid any unfairness. The dissenting judge felt there was no strong evidence to grant Jones's request and believed the original decision should stand.

Continue ReadingC-2008-273

J-2008-02

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.

Continue ReadingJ-2008-02

C-2006-1110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2006-1110

F-2005-228

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-228, Gordon Fife Franklin appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Cruelty to Animals. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Cruelty to Animals and to modify the sentences for the remaining convictions to 55 years each instead of 250 years. One judge dissented. Franklin was found guilty by a jury and received a very long sentence for his crimes. The jury thought that his actions were very bad and wanted him to spend a lot of time in prison. However, the court later said the sentences were too long. They decided that the evidence for one of the charges, Cruelty to Animals, was not strong enough to keep that conviction. During the trial, the court let different pieces of evidence be shown to the jury. Some of this evidence was questioned later, but the court said that it didn't really change the outcome of the trial. They said that even though there were mistakes made in the trial, the serious charges of Kidnapping and Assault were still valid. Overall, the court agreed that while Franklin did do some wrong things, the punishments should be reduced to a more reasonable amount of time. In conclusion, Franklin's punishment was lightened, and the charge for hurting the animal was removed completely.

Continue ReadingF-2005-228

C-2006-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.

Continue ReadingC-2006-693

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

C-2005-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1198, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal. One member dissented. The case involved a man named Brad Daniel Richards who pleaded guilty to two charges: burglary and concealing stolen property. He received a sentence of seven years in prison for the burglary and a five-year suspended sentence for the other charge. After his conviction, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas because he felt that his lawyer did not represent him well during the hearing where he tried to withdraw his plea. Richards argued that his attorney had a conflict of interest. During the hearing to withdraw his plea, the attorney mentioned that there could be an issue with his previous representation but did not argue on Richards' behalf. The court noted that a lawyer should provide good help to their client, especially at this critical stage of the process. The court looked closely at whether Richards' lawyer's conflict of interest affected his case. They pointed out that Richards had not testified, and his lawyer did not really support his claims. Because of this, the court could not make a clear decision about whether Richards should be allowed to withdraw his plea. In the end, the court granted Richards' request to review the original decision and said he deserves a new hearing with a different lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1198

F-2004-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1261

C-2005-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-398, Elisa Nielson appealed her conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of 16. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented from the decision. Elisa Nielson had entered a guilty plea for her crime on February 7, 2005. The judge sentenced her to twenty years in prison, but she would only have to serve ten years if she followed certain rules. Nielson later wanted to take back her guilty plea because she thought there was confusion about what her sentence would be. She argued that a deal was made where she wouldn't be sentenced to more than five years in prison, but when it came time for sentencing, the judge did not follow that recommendation. Nielson brought her case to a higher court, saying that the trial judge should have let her change her mind about the guilty plea before sentencing. The higher court looked at all the facts and agreed with her. They found that the confusion about the plea meant she should have been allowed to withdraw it. The court decided Nielson's issue about the sentence was not relevant after they allowed her to withdraw her plea. So, they granted her request and sent the case back to the lower court to work things out according to their ruling. One judge disagreed and said that Nielson understood what she was doing when she accepted her guilty plea. He thought the agreement was clear and that the lower court had done everything correctly. He would not have granted her appeal.

Continue ReadingC-2005-398

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

M-2004-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.

Continue ReadingM-2004-802

M-2002-1146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.

Continue ReadingM-2002-1146

M 2001-0393

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM 2001-0393

F-2000-1163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1163, Byrin Carr appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Carr's convictions. One judge dissented. Byrin Carr was found guilty by a jury of two counts related to selling cocaine near a school and public housing. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, plus fines. However, Carr argued that the court made mistakes during his trial. One of the key points was that Carr wanted the jury to hear about entrapment. This means he believed he was tricked into committing the crime by police. The court agreed that this important point should have been shared with the jury. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carr's convictions. Now, instead of being convicted of delivery, Carr was found guilty of possessing cocaine near a school and just possession of cocaine in general. His new sentence was reduced to five years for each conviction, to be served one after the other. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge dissented. This dissenting judge believed that instead of changing the convictions, the case should be sent back for a new trial to address the mistakes made. Overall, the case highlighted the importance of fair instructions to the jury and how mistakes in court can lead to changes in sentences or corrections in charges.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1163

F-2000-796

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2000-796