District Court

F-2005-1282

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1282

RE-2005-1195

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1195, #x appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base). In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of the suspended sentence. #n dissented. In this case, the appellant was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs back in 1997. He was given a ten-year sentence but was allowed to serve only five years after some of it was suspended. Over the years, he was on probation. However, in September 2005, the state claimed that he had violated his probation by doing something called domestic abuse and by not following a protective order. A hearing took place to investigate these claims. The judge decided that the appellant did break the rules by having some contact that could be considered domestic abuse, but it was a small violation. The contact happened when he was trying to see his baby son, which was allowed by a court order. It seemed that the meeting was short and not planned, and he ended it when it became clear that the other person wouldn't follow the rules. The court thought these special circumstances made the punishment too harsh. They decided to lessen the punishment and only took away one year from the suspended sentence instead of a larger amount. The appellant would still have to follow the rules of his probation after this one year was served. In summary, the court agreed that the appellant had a minor violation worth a one-year revocation, but otherwise, he would return to probation for the rest of his sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-1195

S-2005-890

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

Continue ReadingS-2005-890

RE-2006-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-1308

RE-2006-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-363, the appellant appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified the sentence to six years of incarceration. One judge dissented. The background of the case includes that the appellant entered a guilty plea in July 2003 and was sentenced to twelve years, which was suspended on the condition that she complete an inpatient drug treatment program. However, in March 2005, the state filed an application to revoke her suspended sentence due to several violations, including failure to report to her probation officer and failing to comply with drug testing and treatment requirements. The court found that she also had new drug-related charges against her. In November 2005, a hearing took place where she admitted to the violations. The court then revoked her suspended sentence completely. The appellant later tried to withdraw her plea regarding the revocation but was denied. The review showed that the court followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the decision to revoke her sentence. Although the court upheld the decision, it decided to lower the amount of time she would spend incarcerated from twelve years to six years.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-363

F-2005-859

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-859, Percy Dewayne Cato appealed his conviction for driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions, but modified one of the fines. One judge dissented. Percy Cato was found guilty by a jury for three different offenses. The first was driving under the influence, which was more serious because he had two previous DUI convictions. The jury gave him a punishment that included time in prison and other conditions like treatment and community service. He was sentenced to a total of four and a half years, with some of that time suspended, meaning he would only serve three years in prison and spend time on probation afterwards. Cato claimed the instructions given to the jury about his previous DUI convictions were wrong, saying they should have been told that one of those convictions couldn't be used to give him a harsher punishment. The court found that this mistake did not harm Cato; he still received a fair punishment based on his actions. He also argued that the way his punishment was split between prison time and treatment violated the law. However, the court ruled that this was okay because the law allows for a mix of punishment and rehabilitation for DUI cases. Cato requested that the jury be told how to consider evidence showing he refused to take a breath or blood test. Although the court said this type of instruction is important, they did not find it necessary in Cato's case because he couldn't prove that it affected the outcome of his trial. In summary, the court upheld the main parts of Cato's punishment while making a small change to one of the fines. The decision was mostly in favor of maintaining his convictions, showing the court believed that the jury's decision was fair and just.

Continue ReadingF-2005-859

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

C-2006-286

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-286, Michelle Emma Hill appealed her conviction for Incitement to Riot. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her the opportunity to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2006-286

F-2005-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-987

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

RE-2006-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-135

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

RE-2005-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-863

F 2005-569

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-569, Anthony Logan Merrick appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes involving minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of Merrick's convictions but reversed and dismissed certain specific counts. One judge disagreed with part of the decision. Merrick was tried and found guilty of 21 counts of sexual abuse of a child, 2 counts of sexual exploitation of a child, 15 counts of possession of obscene material involving minors, 4 counts of first-degree rape by instrumentation, and 8 counts of indecent or lewd acts with a minor child under sixteen. He received two life sentences and additional time for the other charges, which would run together, but separately from some other counts. Merrick raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the search warrant used to gather evidence was not valid because it did not show enough probable cause, and therefore, the evidence collected should not have been allowed in court. The court disagreed and explained that the affidavit (the document that supported the search) did provide a reasonable basis for the warrant. They determined that there was enough evidence to suggest a crime had taken place and that the search was lawful. He also claimed the warrant was not detailed enough in specifying what items could be seized. The court found that the warrant was correctly written to allow officers to identify the items they needed to seize. Merrick's next point was about double punishment. He argued he should not be punished for both the act of lewd molestation and the possession of related images, saying it was unfair. However, the court concluded that these were separate crimes, and thus he could be punished for both. Merrick also believed he should only be charged once for a large number of images found, but the court stated that there were indeed separate counts for each type of evidence that were introduced. Lastly, Merrick claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which hurt his case. The court said there wasn't enough evidence to show that he was harmed by his lawyer's performance. As a result, the court upheld the majority of the convictions while reversing some counts related to possession of images, ordering them to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2005-569

F-2005-684

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-684, Aaron Christopher Marks appealed his conviction for shooting with intent to kill, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for shooting with intent to kill to forty-five years in prison but upheld the conviction. One judge dissented, arguing that there was no need for sentence modification since the jury likely did not need instruction on parole eligibility and the original sentence was justified based on the evidence presented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-684

F-2005-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-97, Dodson appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wesley Dodson was found guilty by a jury in the district court of a serious crime against two victims. The judge sentenced him to serve a long time in prison, with each count requiring him to stay for fifty years. After Dodson's conviction, he appealed the decision, which means he asked a higher court to review the case to see if there were any mistakes. Dodson raised several important points about why he thought the trial was unfair. First, he believed he did not get a fair jury because one juror was biased and should have been removed. Second, he argued that the court allowed hearsay evidence about children that was not presented correctly and could make the jury think the victims were more credible than they were. Third, he claimed that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to prove he committed the crimes. Lastly, Dodson said that all these errors together made the trial unfair. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Dodson on some key points. They found that there was indeed a biased juror who should have been excused, which took away Dodson's right to have a fair trial. They also agreed that the trial court should have been more careful about the hearsay evidence related to the victims, and that a police officer made comments that suggested the victims were telling the truth when that should have been left for the jury to decide. However, the court thought that there was enough evidence to support the victims' claims, meaning the jury could have reasonably found Dodson guilty based on their testimonies. Since the court found serious issues with how the trial was handled, they decided that Dodson's convictions should be reversed, meaning he would not have to serve the prison sentences handed down from the first trial, and they ordered that a new trial should happen. In summary, the higher court said that Dodson did not receive a fair trial due to certain errors, so they cancelled the previous decision and said there should be another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-97

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737

S-2005-1250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1250, Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assaulting a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling, which had granted Dinkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during an illegal search. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1250

F-2005-252

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-252, Charles Earl Lindsay appealed his conviction for robbery with an imitation firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Lindsay was tried in Cleveland County and found guilty of robbery with an imitation firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lindsay did not agree with this decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed robbery using an imitation firearm. The court agreed that while the state proved most parts of the robbery, they did not prove that Lindsay threatened the victim with the imitation firearm since she never actually saw it during the crime. Because of this, the court thought it was fair to change his conviction to first-degree robbery, saying he unnecessarily hurt the victim and scared her. Lindsay also argued that the prosecution had made mistakes during the trial, including allowing a police officer to testify about the victim identifying him. Although the court noted this was not a good practice, they felt it did not change the outcome of the trial since Lindsay’s attorney had challenged the identification in other ways. Another point Lindsay raised was that his lawyer did not help him properly. The court decided that the lawyer’s actions did not break any laws protecting his rights, so this argument did not succeed. Lindsay further stated he had an unfair trial because he was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs in front of the jury. The court acknowledged this was an error but said that this alone did not warrant a different outcome. Lindsay’s attorney also did not ask for the jury to consider any lesser charges of robbery, but the court found this was appropriate since Lindsay claimed he was innocent. Regarding closing arguments by the prosecutor, the court found that a fair trial was still upheld. However, the court did recognize there were mistakes regarding Lindsay's sentencing, particularly not informing the jury about some rules related to sentencing. In the end, the court reversed Lindsay's original conviction and instead convicted him of first-degree robbery. They also decided to reduce his sentence to 20 years in prison, taking into account all the discussed errors. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the judgment and sentence based on these decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-252

S-2006-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

Continue ReadingS-2006-117

F 2004-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1198, David Lynn Nelson appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One judge dissented on the matter of that specific count. Nelson was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including two counts of Rape by Instrumentation, four counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy, two counts of First Degree Rape, and one count of Attempted Rape. He had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentencing. The jury sentenced him to 40 years in prison plus fines for some counts, while for the others, he received life imprisonment and higher fines. The sentences for all counts were set to run at the same time. During the appeal process, Nelson raised several issues. First, he claimed that he did not receive good help from his lawyer during the trial. However, the court found that his lawyer made decisions that were reasonable, so this claim was dismissed. Nelson also wanted the jury to be informed about new rules that would affect how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole, but the court did not grant this request. The court later decided it was important to adjust his life sentences to a total of 45 years instead. Moreover, Nelson argued that the evidence did not clearly show he committed one of the charges, specifically concerning the forcible oral sodomy. The court looked at the details of the evidence and found it lacking in proving that aspect, leading to the reversal of that particular count. In summary, the court upheld most of the convictions, but one was removed, and the sentences for the life terms were reduced, while the other penalties remained unchanged. The judge who disagreed with reversing the sodomy conviction felt that the evidence given during the trial was enough to support that finding.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1198

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

C-2005-1208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1208

RE-2005-1032

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-1032

F-2005-700

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

Continue ReadingF-2005-700