In OCCA case No. J-2014-980, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child due to the lack of sufficient evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-139, Clifford Eugene Teel appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible sodomy, and indecent exposure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his guilty pleas and allowed him to enter new pleas for the charges. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Teel had entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for another, all to be served together. Later, Teel wanted to change his plea because he believed he had been given wrong information about the length of his possible prison time. He thought he could get life in prison, but it turned out that the maximum punishment for his charges was actually much less. Teel's claims were that he did not get proper advice from his lawyer and that the judge did not explain the correct punishments before he accepted the plea. During a review, it was found that the trial court had indeed not informed him right about the maximum punishments he faced. The Attorney General even admitted there was a mistake in how Teel was advised. The court decided that since Teel's plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily due to the wrong advice, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter new ones concerning his charges. The original judgment and sentence from the District Court were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1027, Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for corrections. One judge dissented. Justin Michael Jay was in trouble with the law and had a suspended sentence, which means he wouldn’t have to serve time in jail if he followed the rules. He had pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a suspended sentence of five years, but he had to spend the first 30 days in jail. However, things changed when he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation. The State, which is the side that brings charges, said that Jay did not pay the money he owed for supervision, restitution (the money owed to victims), and court costs. They also noted that Jay was charged with more crimes: Domestic Abuse and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Because of these new charges and failures to pay, the State asked the court to revoke Jay's suspended sentence. The court held a hearing to discuss Jay's situation. After listening to the evidence and arguments, the judge decided to revoke the rest of Jay's suspended sentence. This meant that Jay would have to serve the time he had left, which was almost five years. Later, the court filed a document that said Jay was revoked for 4 years and 335 days, and that he would have to be supervised after getting out of jail. Jay appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed that the amount of time the judge revoked was wrong because he should have received credit for more days served when he was part of a special program for youthful offenders. Both Jay and the State agreed on this point, saying he should have been credited for 183 days instead of just 30. Therefore, they asked to change the revocation time to 4 years and 182 days. The second point Jay argued was that the court did not have the authority to order him to be under supervision after finishing his time in jail because the law about that only applies to those who were sentenced after November 1, 2012. Since Jay's original guilty plea and sentencing were before that date, the judge should not have included that supervision requirement. In the end, the court agreed with Jay on both points. They reversed the judgment that included the incorrect time and the unnecessary supervision requirement. They ordered the lower court to make the corrections and update the documents accordingly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. SR-2013-1187, the State appealed the conviction of Carson for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. Carson was charged with six counts of lewd molestation. A jury found him not guilty on three charges and couldn’t make a decision on the other three, which are still unresolved. The appeal centered around whether the district court made the right call when allowing evidence about past sexual abuse involving a different perpetrator. The State argued that this evidence should not have been allowed under a law known as the Rape Shield statute, designed to protect victims by limiting the introduction of their past sexual behavior. The district court, however, let the defense question the victim about these other incidents. The State believed this was a mistake and wanted the court to review the evidence ruling. However, the court decided not to do so. They trust the trial court's judgment on these matters unless there is clear proof of a mistake. The court said the State did not show that the trial court made an error in allowing the evidence. In summary, the OCCA upheld the decision made by the district court, ruling that they acted within their rights, and the case for Carson was allowed to stand as it was.
In OCCA case No. M-2013-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for direct contempt of court. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, stating that while the court's warning was correct, the error in not allowing the appellant a chance to be heard was harmless because the appellant's sentence was later reduced.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-124, Roach appealed her conviction for three counts of Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.
In OCCA case No. J-2014-0646, D.S.C. appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child and remand the case for further proceedings. One justice dissented. D.S.C., who was born on September 17, 1997, had been charged with two counts of lewd or indecent acts, and a petition was filed on December 21, 2012. His trial occurred without a jury on July 9, 2014, and the decision was made to find him delinquent, meaning that the court said he had committed an act that is considered wrong for a child of his age. D.S.C. appealed this decision, arguing that he had been denied a right to a jury trial. He claimed that he agreed to waive his jury trial as part of a deal to enter a sex offender program, which he did not end up getting into. Because he could not start or complete this program, he felt that he should not have waived his right to a jury trial. He believed that the deal between him and the State was unfair because it was not fulfilled, and therefore, the agreement should not hold. The court agreed with D.S.C. and pointed out that he had the right to demand a jury trial, which could only be waived under certain conditions. Since the conditions of the deal were not met, the waiver of the jury trial was not valid. This means that once the deal fell through, D.S.C. should have been given the chance to have a jury trial. Because of this ruling, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision that found D.S.C. delinquent and send it back to the lower court so that it can be handled differently. Since the court found this issue important, they did not see a need to discuss the other claims D.S.C. made in his appeal. Therefore, the outcome focused on the jury trial right, leading to the decision that he deserved another chance to have a trial with a jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-994, Horace Joe Bigmedicine appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Bigmedicine was found guilty in a trial held in Blaine County and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He raised two main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that misconduct by the prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial. The court stated that it would only grant relief for prosecutorial misconduct if it was very serious and made the trial unfair. The court found the prosecutor's comments were appropriate and did not make the trial unfair, so they did not grant relief on that issue. Second, Bigmedicine claimed that the court did not properly follow the rules when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution. The court pointed out that Bigmedicine did not object to the restitution at the time, so he could not challenge it later unless there was a serious mistake. The law allows a trial court to require a defendant to pay restitution for the victim's financial losses, but these losses must be proven with reasonable certainty. In Bigmedicine’s case, the evidence about the victim’s financial loss was lacking because the victim did not testify about it, and the necessary documents were not presented in court. Therefore, the court ruled that the restitution order was arbitrary and that it had to be canceled. Ultimately, the court affirmed Bigmedicine's conviction but required that the issue of restitution be looked at again in the lower court to make sure it was handled correctly.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-635, Bradberry appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended life sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the full revocation and modify it to a ten-year revocation instead. One judge dissented. Bradberry was given suspended life sentences for failing to register as a sex offender and living near a school. He was on probation for less than two weeks when the state accused him of not reporting to his probation officer and not providing proof of employment or treatment. The trial judge decided to revoke his sentences completely due to these violations. Bradberry argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking his sentences in full, claiming it was excessive. The appeals court agreed that the judge abused his discretion, especially since many of Bradberry’s previous issues happened before his new sentencing. They found that the most significant reason for the revocation was his failure to report, which they believed did not warrant a full revocation. In the end, the appeal court decided that Bradberry’s suspended sentences should be modified. Instead of serving a life sentence, he would have to serve ten years of his suspended time. One judge disagreed with this decision and believed the full revocation was justified because Bradberry had not met his probation requirements.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-79, Walker appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting an Officer, and Trespassing. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss Walker's appeal because her application to withdraw her guilty plea was not properly heard by the trial court. One judge dissented, arguing that a hearing had indeed taken place.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-409, Adkins appealed his conviction for probation violations. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of some of his suspended sentences but ruled that the judge could not deny him good time credits while serving his time. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-1030, the petitioner appealed his conviction for grand larceny, false declaration of ownership in pawn, and bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for certiorari. One judge dissented. Kevin Anthony Eifert pleaded guilty to several charges in the District Court of Ottawa County. These included two counts of grand larceny, one count of false declaration of ownership in pawn, and one count of bail jumping. The court placed him in Drug Court but later removed him from that program. Following this, he was sentenced to serve prison time and pay fines. After his sentencing, Eifert tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the court did not have proper records to support the pleas, that he was not competent to enter them, and that some of the fines were too high according to the law. He also claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyers during his hearings. The court looked at his claims and decided that he had not made a proper challenge to some of his arguments when he initially tried to withdraw his pleas. Because of this, some of his complaints were not reviewed. While reviewing the case, the court found that one of the fines imposed was indeed higher than what the law allowed. They modified that fine to the correct amount. In the end, the court denied Eifert's request to change his sentence but changed one fine to align with the legal limits. Most of the judgments from the Ottawa County District Court were confirmed. Overall, while Eifert's appeal was mostly unsuccessful, one part of his sentence was modified due to an error, showing that the court takes care to ensure fairness in sentencing.
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.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-703, Heather Ann Jones appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder, Robbery Committed by Two or More Persons, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Robbery but otherwise affirmed the Judgment and Sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Heather Ann Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in Sequoyah County. The jury sentenced her to fifteen years for Second Degree Murder, five years for Robbery, a fine for Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and one year in jail for Child Neglect, with all sentences running at the same time. Jones raised several issues on appeal. First, she questioned whether there was enough evidence to support her convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decisions, as it showed that Jones knew her accomplices intended to commit robbery. Even though initially the victim let them in, it was shown that they used deception to gain entry, which made their actions unlawful. Second, Jones argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow testimony about her behavior during a TV interview after her daughter was shot. The court found that while the video of the interview was inadmissible, the investigator’s testimony about her demeanor did not count as hearsay and did not unfairly affect the trial. Jones also claimed that statements made by a witness to the police were wrongly admitted, claiming it deprived her of a fair trial. Despite the admission being deemed an error, the court ruled that since the witness testified in court about the same things, the error did not impact the outcome significantly. Jones's objection to some character evidence used against her related to her behavior following her daughter’s shooting was dismissed, as the court believed it directly supported the charge of Child Neglect. She also argued that being convicted for both Robbery and Second Degree Murder was unfairly punishing her twice for the same act. The court agreed, finding that the acts were part of the same crime, so they reversed her conviction for Robbery. In terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jones claimed her lawyer should have objected to several pieces of evidence, including the TV interview, police statements, and character evidence. The court ruled that her lawyer's performance did not prejudicially affect the outcome because the decisions were matters of which objections would not have made a difference. Finally, Jones asked for a review of all issues together, hoping that their combined impact on her trial would show that she did not receive a fair trial. However, the court found the errors were not enough to change the outcome. Overall, the court reversed Jones's conviction for Robbery but affirmed the rest of her convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.