District Court Archives - Page 23 of 29

C-2005-311

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.

F-2005-357

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-357, Bruce Morris Barnett appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that while the trial judge made a mistake by imposing a fine of $100,000 instead of the minimum fine of $25,000, the convictions were upheld. The judge's sentence was modified to change the fine, but the overall decision affirmed the jury's findings regarding the evidence for the convictions. One judge dissented.

F 2005-362

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 16, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-362, Pat Lee Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Pat Lee Richardson was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter after a trial without a jury in Comanche County. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had a defense based on Oklahoma's Make My Day Law, which allows people to use force against intruders in their homes. Richardson claimed the victim was an intruder when he was stabbed. The court explained that the Make My Day Law applies only when someone enters a home, but the victim was standing on the porch, not inside the house. Therefore, Richardson could not use that law as a defense. The court also noted that stabbing the victim a second time while he was on the ground was not justified. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not provide good assistance by not presenting the Make My Day Law defense. However, the court believed this did not affect the outcome of his trial since the law did not apply to his case. He also argued that his actions were justifiable as self-defense. The court stated that there was no evidence to show that he was in danger at the moment he stabbed the victim, considering the victim presented no serious threat. Lastly, Richardson argued that his 35-year sentence was too harsh. The court agreed and modified his sentence to 20 years, feeling that the original sentence was shocking and too severe when taking into account certain factors of the case. Overall, the court upheld the guilty verdict but decided to reduce the prison time that Pat Lee Richardson would have to serve.

S-2005-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.

F-2004-767

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

S-2005-840

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.

RE 2005-0315

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0315, #Matthews appealed his conviction for #Burglary. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to vacate the two-year sentence imposed in CF-1999-365, affirm the acceleration of the deferred sentence in CF-2003-14, and affirm the termination from Drug Court. #None dissented. Kevin Paul Matthews got into trouble with the law a while back. He pled no contest to a charge for running a roadblock and was given a sentence where he didn’t have to spend much time in prison right away. Instead, he was supposed to follow certain rules and help the community. However, he later messed up by not completing his required community service. Then, he got into even more trouble and pleaded guilty to burglary, agreeing to join a special program called Drug Court instead of going straight to prison. This program was meant to help him get better. But after some time, the State said he wasn’t following the rules and asked the judge to send him to prison instead. The judge agreed and decided Matthews needed to go to prison for more time, ruling that any previous time he served didn’t count towards his new sentence. Matthews felt that the judge made mistakes and that he shouldn't have been punished as harshly as he was. Matthews brought his case to a higher court, saying the judge didn't have the right to put him back in prison for the earlier offense because too much time had passed. He also said the judge shouldn’t have made him wait so long without setting an end date to his drug treatment program. Ultimately, the higher court agreed that the judge had made an error in punishing Matthews without accounting for the time he had already served. However, they kept the part where Matthews had to go to prison for his burglary charge because he had failed to follow the rules of the Drug Court. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for more review about what should happen next. So, in the end, Matthews got relief on some of his issues, but not all, showing that while he had some rights, he still needed to take responsibility for his actions.

C-2005-211

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-211, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and producing child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment while modifying the sentences. One judge dissented. Chad Justin Berntson entered guilty pleas to two serious charges related to child pornography in December 2004. In February 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison for each charge, with the sentences set to be served at the same time. He later asked to change his pleas, but the court said no. Berntson argued there were misunderstandings with the plea deal and claimed that one of the charges was not applied correctly, which made his plea involuntary. He also felt that the ten-year sentences were too harsh. After looking closely at his claims and the documents related to his case, the court decided that he did not have a misunderstanding about his plea. They noted that Berntson knew what to expect as they both agreed on a sentence of ten years. However, the court found that he was charged incorrectly with one of the counts, meaning he should have faced a lesser maximum sentence according to the different law that applied. Because of that, they changed the judgment and sentence for that count to five years instead. In the end, the court denied Berntson's request to change his plea, but they adjusted his sentence. They set both counts to five years in prison instead of the original ten years. The two sentences would still be served at the same time. One judge disagreed with how the court modified the sentences, believing that if Berntson entered a valid plea and got the sentence he expected, it should not be changed. This judge thought the court was wrong to alter the charges and punishments after the fact.

F-2004-682

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 1, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.

RE-2005-355

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-355, Bobby Ray Wyles, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial judge wrongly ordered Wyles’ sentences to run consecutively with a later sentence instead of concurrently, which violated the original sentencing agreements. One judge dissented.

F-2004-67

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-67, Marrio D'Shane Willis appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Marrio D'Shane Willis was found guilty by a jury for robbing someone while using a gun. Because he had a previous conviction, the court gave him a sentence of ten years in prison and a fine. Willis did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal. Willis claimed that his attorney did not do a good job in representing him during the trial. He said that the only witness who identified him as the robber had made a mistake and that there was evidence to support that claim which was not presented in the trial. Willis asked for another chance, known as a new trial, based on this new information. The appeals court looked into Willis's claims and sent the case back to a lower court to find more information. This lower court had a hearing where they listened to the eyewitness. During this hearing, the eyewitness changed his story and said he was not sure about his identification of Willis during the trial. He even said he thought another person might be the actual robber. The appeals court found that Willis’s attorney did not try hard enough to prove that the eyewitness might have made a mistake. They decided that if the attorney had investigated this more during the trial, it could have led to a different result. They believed Willis was treated unfairly because of his lawyer's mistakes. After reviewing everything, the appeals court reversed Willis's conviction, meaning he would not be found guilty anymore based on the trial's results. They agreed with the findings of the lower court that the eyewitness's changed testimony made it difficult to trust what he had said during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that the way Willis was represented in court was not good enough, and because of that, they decided he should not have been convicted of robbery.

F-2005-129

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 3, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

F-2004-1081

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1081, Charles Edward Moore, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and modify some sentences. One of the judges dissented. Charles Edward Moore faced serious charges and was found guilty by a jury. He received a total of fourteen years for each robbery, ten years for each kidnapping, and ten years for possession of a firearm related to a past felony. The judge ordered that Moore serve these sentences one after the other. On appeal, Moore argued several points. First, he believed he was unfairly punished for two separate robbery counts concerning the same incident. However, the court decided that this did not violate any laws about double punishments. Next, Moore claimed a conflict between his robbery conviction and the charge for possession after a felony. The court agreed with Moore regarding this point and reversed his conviction for that charge. Additionally, Moore argued that the trial court made an error by not allowing a jury instruction about his eligibility for parole. The court found this to be a mistake but decided to change the sentences for the robbery convictions from fourteen years to ten years each. The court maintained the trial judge's decision to have the sentences served consecutively. Moore also argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer, but the court believed that his case would not have ended differently even with better representation. He further disagreed with the court's admission of evidence about his past wrongdoings, but the court denied that claim too. Lastly, Moore asserted that the combined errors during his trial should lead to a reversal. The court disagreed and upheld the decisions made during the trial. In summary, while the court agreed to modify some of Moore's sentences, it affirmed most of the convictions and found no significant errors that would affect the overall outcome of the trial.

M 2005-0332

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2006
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.

M 2005-0332

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2006
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.

C 2005-628

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2005-628, Roscoe Dansby appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Obtaining Money by Means of a False Check. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. The court found that Dansby was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage of the process because his attorney had a conflict of interest. Thus, the court remanded the case for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and ordered that a conflict-free counsel be appointed. One judge dissented.

F-2004-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 9, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

F 2004-816

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-816, Martin appealed his conviction for several serious crimes against children. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Solly Lee Martin, Jr. was found guilty of multiple charges which included lewd molestation, attempted forcible oral sodomy, and child sexual abuse. The trial happened in Ottawa County, where he received very long sentences for these crimes, which involved terms that ranged from 10 years to life in prison. Some sentences were ordered to be served together, while others had to be served after. During his appeal, Martin claimed he was not given a fair trial. He argued that the trial judge wouldn't allow him to show evidence about the complainant's past which he thought could help his case. In another claim, he said that some testimony during the trial was unfairly negative against him and could influence the jury's decision. The court looked closely at Martin's complaints. They found that he did not properly follow the rules to show the evidence he wanted to introduce, so his first complaint was not accepted. For the second complaint, the court agreed that some of the testimony presented was error, as it talked too much about what the crime might do to the victims in the future, which is generally not allowed in these types of cases. Despite these issues, the court decided that overall, Martin's convictions would remain, but they agreed to change his sentences. Instead of them running one after the other, they made them all run at the same time. The final decision was that although the court kept the convictions, there were changes to make sure the sentences were fair.

RE-2004-1033

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1033, Wren appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified the length of her imprisonment. One judge dissented. Wren had originally been sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended based on her agreeing to probation terms after entering a nolo contendere plea. She did not follow the rules of her probation on several occasions, which led to her first violation and a thirty-day jail sentence. Eventually, the state filed a second motion to revoke her suspended sentence after she failed drug tests and did not pay court costs. Even after a treatment program, Wren continued to use methamphetamine. When the court determined that she had broken her probation rules again, it revoked her suspended sentence entirely. However, Wren argued that her full sentence shouldn't be four years since part of it had already been executed with her previous thirty-day incarceration. The court agreed that the final sentence was actually longer than it should have been and modified the length to reflect the time she had already served. In the end, the court affirmed the revocation of her suspended sentence but adjusted the total imprisonment time to account for her earlier time served, confirming that she needs to serve three years and three hundred thirty-five days of her sentence.

S-2005-657

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.

F-2004-971

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.

F 2004-989

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.

F-2004-691

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-691, Cleon Christopher Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including third-degree arson, robbery with a firearm, accessory after the fact to shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a stolen vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for third-degree arson, but affirmed the convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the arson conviction. Johnson was charged with serious crimes in Tulsa County and was found guilty by a jury. They gave him a total of 89 years in prison for his actions. On appeal, Johnson argued that there was not enough evidence for the arson conviction, that the robbery charge was not proven, and that there was misconduct during the trial. The court agreed with Johnson that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed arson, as the value of the property burned was not established. They stated that to prove third-degree arson, it's necessary to show the value of the property was at least $50. Since there was no proof of this value, that specific conviction was overturned. However, they found that there was enough evidence to support the robbery conviction. The jury was able to conclude that Johnson played an important role in that crime. On the point of prosecutorial misconduct, the court mentioned that Johnson's attorney did not object at trial, which limited their review. The comments made during the trial were not serious enough to be considered a significant error. So, the final decision was to reverse the third-degree arson conviction and send it back for dismissal, while upholding the other convictions against Johnson. One judge thought that the evidence was strong enough to support the arson conviction and disagreed with the reversal.

J-2005-1078

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2006
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-1078, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced the appellant as an adult and directed that he be treated as a youthful offender in the event of a conviction. No judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as a youthful offender on September 23, 2004. After a request to be treated as a juvenile was denied, the state filed a motion to sentence the appellant as an adult. This motion led to a trial that was scheduled for September 12, 2005. However, just before the trial started, the state asked to cancel the trial and have a hearing on the motion to sentence him as an adult, which was scheduled for October 12, 2005. During the appeal, the appellant raised three main issues. He argued that the delays in bringing the charges against him were unfair and that the case should be dismissed. He also claimed that the state could not pursue adult sentencing because the trial had already begun before the hearing, and lastly, he said there wasn't enough evidence to show he couldn't be helped through the juvenile system. The court looked closely at the timing of when the trial started and when the hearing to sentence him as an adult happened. They determined that the trial had indeed started when jury selection began, and the law required that the hearing on the adult sentencing motion should have happened before the trial began. Since it did not, the court found that the district court made a mistake by allowing the state to strike the trial after jury selection had started and then proceed with the sentencing hearing. As a result, the order to sentence the appellant as an adult was reversed, and the case was sent back to the district court with instructions to treat the appellant as a youthful offender if he were to be convicted.

F-2004-389

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-389, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery by force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved James Stephen Richardson, who was found guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $1500. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this impacted his defense. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge a juror, did not question how he was identified by the victims, and did not find evidence that could help prove he was innocent. The court looked into Richardson's claims and decided to hold a special hearing to investigate his last point about ineffective assistance of counsel. During this hearing, it was revealed that there were certain jail policies regarding the clothing of inmates that were not properly investigated by Richardson’s attorney. The evidence showed that the items of clothing could not be released under the jail's rules, which could have helped Richardson’s case. The district court agreed that the lawyer did not conduct a reasonable investigation about this clothing policy. Because of this failure, the judge believed that the defense had a weaker case and that if this information had been presented, the outcome of the trial could have been different. The court decided that Richardson's attorney did not provide adequate legal help, which is why they reversed the original judgment. In summary, Richardson's case was sent back for a new trial because the court found that his lawyer did not do enough to support his defense, particularly regarding important evidence about the clothing policy at the jail.