In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-687, the appellant appealed his conviction for DUI manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death. Two justices dissented from the decision. The case involved an incident that took place on October 11, 2012, when the appellee was charged with first-degree manslaughter. This charge stemmed from the accidental death of his wife, Linda Vaughan, while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Vaughan was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .14, and that his wife had exited the truck he was driving. She was killed when he accidentally ran over her. Vaughan argued that the state's evidence failed to show that his driving while intoxicated was the direct cause of Linda's death. Testimony from a highway patrolman indicated that while Vaughan may have been more aware of his surroundings if he were sober, Linda's death would have occurred regardless of his intoxication. The court examined whether the state had presented enough evidence to prove that the appellee's actions directly caused the victim's death. They found that the evidence showed Linda made the choice to leave the vehicle and that her death was caused by her own actions, not by the appellee's impaired driving. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of DUI manslaughter, the court upheld the decision of the lower court, which had granted Vaughan's demurrer, meaning they did not find probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to support the charge against Vaughan. The decision did not minimize the tragedy of the accident but emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0672, Wilburn Shawn Crowell appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery-Domestic Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Crowell's suspended sentence and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The State agreed that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the suspended sentence because it had already expired before the State filed for revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-962, Jonas Alan Thornton appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Thornton's conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to concerns over the impartiality of the trial judge. One judge dissented. Thornton was convicted after a non-jury trial where the judge was someone he had previously consulted while looking for legal advice regarding the case against him. The incident occurred in January 2010 when Thornton allegedly fired a handgun into a house. After being arrested, he spoke with the judge, who was not in his judge role at that time. Later, the judge was elected and presided over Thornton’s trial. During the appeal, Thornton claimed that the judge should have recused himself because of their prior interaction, which could influence how the judge viewed the case. The court found that the judge failed to follow rules requiring him to step aside, which led to a decision that Thornton did not receive a fair trial. The court stated that even though Thornton did not directly ask for the judge to disqualify himself at the time, this did not eliminate the obligation for the judge to recognize a conflict of interest. The relationship between Thornton and the judge meant that the fairness of the trial could be doubted. As a result, the court ruled that Thornton's conviction needed to be reversed, and he would get a new trial. This decision effectively set aside the earlier trial's results and meant that any further claims Thornton made concerning his representation or other trial aspects were not addressed since the focus was on the impartiality of the judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-261, Harjo appealed his conviction for obtaining merchandise and cash by bogus checks. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Harjo's remaining suspended sentences. One judge dissented. To give a bit more background, Harjo had initially entered a guilty plea to three counts of obtaining merchandise and cash with bogus checks and received suspended sentences on those counts. He was supposed to follow certain rules while on probation. However, he faced multiple issues and missed a court date, leading to a bench warrant for his arrest. Although he was later ordered to complete a drug and alcohol program, he still faced trouble and did not appear for court when required. Eventually, in 2013, the court conducted a hearing regarding his probation violations. Interestingly, the State did not present any new evidence at this hearing. Because the State admitted that it had made a mistake, the court ruled to reverse the decision made to revoke Harjo's suspended sentences. This meant that the earlier decision to punish him again was incorrect, since he had already been punished for the previous violations. In conclusion, the appeals court found that it was not right to revoke Harjo's suspended sentences based merely on earlier violations, and it decided that Harjo's sentences would remain suspended.
In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-309, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances and possession of contraband. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea and affirmed the lower court's judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. The case involved Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr., who entered a guilty plea to charges related to drug possession. This plea was part of a deal to resolve two separate cases. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison for one charge and five years for another, with some fines. The sentences would run at the same time, which means he would serve them together. Later, Cox wrote a letter that seemed to ask to take back his guilty plea. The court had a hearing about this but decided not to let him withdraw the plea. Cox's main arguments were that he was pressured into his plea, his lawyer did not help him enough, and he wanted a new hearing to challenge his plea. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to show he was coerced into pleading guilty. They also determined that his legal representation during the hearing was sufficient. The court noted that the rules allowed for his past time in jail to be counted toward his sentence, and they directed the lower court to correct its records to reflect this. In summary, they denied his request but agreed on the correction of his time served in the sentencing documents. Thus, the earlier decision of the district court was largely upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1039, Earnest Toby Bearshead appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm but reversed his conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Bearshead was found guilty of two crimes: Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. The jury decided he should go to prison for nine years for the robbery and five years for the false personation. The sentences would be served one after the other. Bearshead did not argue against the robbery conviction but did challenge the false personation conviction based on three main issues. First, Bearshead claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed false personation. The law says that to be guilty of false personation, a person has to pretend to be someone else and do something that could cause that person to face legal issues or gain some benefit. Bearshead argued that since a video of him talking to the police was not officially accepted as evidence, he could not be said to have assumed another person's identity. Despite this claim, the court found that Bearshead had indeed provided evidence of using a false name when talking to the police. A detective testified that Bearshead initially said his name was “Oscar” and later corrected it to “Toby.” The detective had noted this on a form, showing that Bearshead tried to lie about his identity. The second point Bearshead raised was that even if he did use a false name, he did not do anything to get someone else in trouble, as there were no legal issues connected to the name Oscar Bearshead. The State argued he would have benefitted in some way, such as avoiding responsibility for the robbery. However, there was no evidence that showed Bearshead actually gained anything from pretending to be Oscar. He still faced the charges and was found guilty of the robbery. The court pointed out that Bearshead's jury was not instructed about the possibility of benefiting from using a false name, which was necessary for proving false personation in this case. Without clear evidence that he gained any benefits from the impersonation, the court decided the State did not meet the burden of proving all parts of the crime. As a result, the court reversed Bearshead's conviction for False Personation and ordered it to be dismissed. However, his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm stood, and he would still serve the sentence related to that crime. The decision led to one judge expressing a different opinion from the others.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1126, Kevon Andra McLaren appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts of kidnapping while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented. In the case, McLaren was found guilty of several serious crimes, including robbery, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to kill. The court focused on multiple offenses he committed against several people, determining that some of the convictions did not violate laws against double punishment because they were for different acts against different victims. However, they found one of the kidnapping charges was too similar to a robbery charge; thus, they reversed that particular conviction. Additionally, McLaren challenged the trial court’s decision to order restitution, claiming it did not follow proper procedures. However, the court ruled that he did not raise this issue correctly and that there was enough evidence to support the restitution ordered for the victims. Overall, while the court reversed one conviction, most of McLaren's convictions and sentences were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-478, Michael Ray Baack appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court while remanding the case to correct the judgment regarding the fine on Count 1. One member of the court dissented. Michael Ray Baack was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for having controlled substances and for being publicly intoxicated. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison and pay a $2,000 fine for the drug charge, along with thirty days in jail for public intoxication. The judge ordered both sentences to be served one after the other but waived the fine on the drug charge. Baack raised several questions on appeal. He argued about the evidence being enough to convict him of the drug charge, how other crimes were presented during the trial, the lack of instructions on a lesser drug offense, the fine, and whether his sentence was too harsh. 1. The court found that the evidence showed Baack had knowingly possessed drugs. The jury had enough proof to make a logical decision based on the facts presented. 2. About the other crimes evidence, the court mentioned that Baack had introduced his prior record himself, so he could not complain about that during the appeal since it was his choice to bring it up. 3. Baack's request for a lower charge on drug paraphernalia was not granted because he claimed he was innocent. The court said that when someone claims they did not do something, they cannot ask for lesser charges. 4. The fine for the drug charge was waived, and both Baack and the state agreed that the case should go back to the lower court to correct the documents to show there was no fine. 5. The claim that Baack was hurt by showing his previous felony conviction was denied because it did not affect the outcome of the case. The court stated that the sentences were appropriate and followed the law. In conclusion, the court upheld the findings of the lower court and noted there was no need for a new trial or changes to the verdicts, except for correcting the issue with the fine.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-1154, Charles D. North appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant North's request to withdraw his guilty pleas due to the fact that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during the hearing on this motion. North also challenged the legality of his sentences for two other counts. The court agreed that those sentences exceeded what was allowed by law. Therefore, they vacated the illegal sentences and sent the case back to the lower court for North to have new counsel and a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-236, #Jonathan Bear Robe Nahwooksy appealed his conviction for #First Degree Rape and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence. Nahwooksy was originally sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for First Degree Rape and five years for Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation; however, the court changed the thirty-year sentence to twenty years and ordered both sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after the other. During the trial, Nahwooksy was found guilty of raping his second cousin, K.M., who was fourteen at the time. The case revolved around whether the sexual encounter was forced or consensual. The prosecutor's conduct throughout the case led to concerns about the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that seemed to create sympathy for K.M. and portrayed herself and the investigating officer as champions of justice. The court examined the prosecutor's behavior and found that it went beyond acceptable limits, especially when she made personal comments and depicted herself as fighting for victims. While there was enough evidence for the jury to find Nahwooksy guilty, the court believed that the prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments likely affected the jury's decision on sentencing. In conclusion, while the conviction was upheld, the court decided to reduce Nahwooksy's sentence to ensure fairness in light of the errors made during the trial. #None dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-483, the defendant appealed his conviction for various crimes involving minors, including sodomy, lewd acts, and sexual battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain evidence. One judge dissented from this decision. Thomas Bradley Porton was charged with serious crimes against children. The crimes included sodomy and other lewd acts, as well as providing alcohol to minors and possessing indecent photographs. These charges were based on incidents that occurred in McCurtain County. During the pretrial, the State wanted to use photographs found on Porton's computer as evidence. However, the judge ruled that these photographs could not be used in court. The State believed that the photos were important to prove their case against Porton. They argued that the photographs showed a pattern of behavior that related to the crimes he was charged with. The State appealed the judge's decision to keep the photographs out of the trial. They said that their ability to prove Porton's guilt was greatly affected without this evidence. The law allows the State to appeal when evidence is excluded if it is believed to be in the interests of justice. However, the court found that the State did not show that the photographs were a critical part of the evidence needed to prove the case. Because of this, the appeal was denied, meaning the photographs would not be part of the trial. The ruling pointed out that the trial judge had looked closely at the case and had reasonable grounds to decide that the photographs were not relevant or that their potential to cause unfair problems outweighed their usefulness as evidence. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion. He felt that the photographs should not have been excluded because they could help prove Porton's motive and intent regarding the charges. He argued that evidence of other actions taken by the defendant should have been considered, especially since there were connections between the photographs and the charges against Porton. In summary, the court upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, impacting the State's case against Porton, while one judge believed this decision was incorrect and would have allowed the evidence.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges against Herfurth. One member of the court dissented. Herfurth was charged in the District Court of Cleveland County. He initially pled guilty to Indecent Exposure in 1995 and was required to register as a sex offender for a certain period. Over the years, changes in the law increased registration times, and Herfurth was reclassified without a clear indication that the new rules applied to his case. The court found the law change was not meant to be retroactive, meaning it could not be applied to him for actions that took place before the law changed. The court concluded that the dismissal of the charges by the District Court should stand, and therefore Herfurth's conviction was overturned. The dissenting opinion disagreed, arguing that the laws should also be based on current requirements and should not shield offenders from prosecution for failing to comply with updated registration laws. The dissent emphasized that failing to register under the laws in effect at the time should still be a chargeable offense.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.