In OCCA case No. J-2004-741, C. C. appealed his conviction for attempted larceny of domestic game. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling and clarify that the total restitution to be paid by C. C. and his co-defendant is $8,000. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-662, a fifteen-year-old juvenile appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. One judge dissented. The case started when the State filed a petition claiming that the Appellant committed the act of burglary. A trial was held without a jury, and the court found him guilty. The Appellant then appealed this decision, claiming there were two main problems. First, the Appellant argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed that the State did not show enough evidence for the breaking part of the burglary charge. However, they decided that the evidence was enough for a different crime called Entering a Building with Certain Intent, which is also known as Illegal Entry. Second, the Appellant argued that he did not properly give up his right to a jury trial. The court said this claim was not valid. They found that the Appellant had a lawyer during the trial and he signed a form saying he was okay with not having a jury. There was no evidence that he did not understand this decision or that he was forced into it. In the end, the court modified the original ruling and confirmed that the Appellant was guilty of Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. This decision was officially recorded by the court, and they ordered that the correct information be entered into the court records.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-983, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the Petitioner was charged with a crime related to making methamphetamine, but he later changed his plea to guilty for a lesser charge. He was put into a special drug court program. However, when he did not follow the rules of the program, the state decided to terminate him. The Petitioner then agreed to the termination but wanted to go back on his guilty plea. During the hearings, the court looked carefully at whether the Petitioner had really made his guilty plea freely and with understanding. They found that the evidence provided to support the guilty plea was not strong enough. The Petitioner didn't have a preliminary hearing, and there was no testimony from his past lawyer to back up the plea. Because of these reasons, the court decided that the Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and reversed the previous judgment.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-305, D.H.D. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of D.H.D.'s motion for certification as a juvenile but reversed the denial for certification as a youthful offender, meaning D.H.D. would be tried in a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-136, Justin Lyle Thomas appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Operating a Motor Vehicle Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision regarding his ability to withdraw certain guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Thomas had pleaded guilty to several charges and was supposed to complete a drug court program to avoid sentencing. However, after not doing well in the program, the state wanted to sentence him. He asked to withdraw his guilty pleas for some of the counts, and the court agreed to let him withdraw his pleas for two of the charges but denied his request for the other two. Thomas argued that he had not been properly informed about the possible sentences for the charges. The court found that there was a mistake about the punishment ranges, specifically for the drug charges. They ruled that this mistake affected his decision to plead guilty, and because of this, he should have been allowed to withdraw his pleas for all counts. The court decided in favor of Thomas and said the lower court had made a mistake when it denied his request. However, one judge disagreed and believed that the incorrect information did not really influence Thomas’s decision to plead guilty to the other charges.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0106, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation in one case and affirm it in another. One judge dissented. The appellant had a history of legal issues. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a five-year deferred sentence. This means he would not go to jail immediately but had to follow certain rules for those five years. In 1999, he pleaded guilty again, this time for having a firearm as a felon. After some time, a hearing took place to see if the appellant broke the rules of his suspended sentences. The court decided to take away part of his suspended sentence in both cases. However, the appellant argued that the court should not have been able to do that because his first sentence had already expired before the new hearing, making it unfair to revoke it. The court looked into this and agreed with the appellant on the first case, stating they had no right to take away the suspended sentence because it was no longer valid. However, for the second case, they found that the state had followed the proper steps and had the right to revoke his suspended sentence there. In the end, the court told the lower court to dismiss the revocation for the first case, but they maintained the revocation for the second case.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-397, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including drug possession and firearms charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved Michael Wayne Hackler, who had been previously convicted in three separate cases. He was given five years of suspended sentences for felony and misdemeanor drug and firearm offenses. However, the state claimed he violated his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a petition to revoke his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge decided that some evidence obtained against Hackler could not be used to revoke his probation due to improper police actions. However, the judge also ruled that the police behavior was not serious enough to apply a rule that would prevent that evidence from being considered in the revocation hearing. After examining the evidence, the court found that the appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentences. The judge’s rulings were questioned, but the appeals court agreed that there was no major mistake in how the judge made his decisions. However, the court did note that the written sentences needed to be changed to show the correct punishments for some of the misdemeanor charges. In the end, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court to revoke the suspended sentences and ordered corrections to be made to the judgments regarding the sentences imposed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-455, Janis Gale McAbee appealed her conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. McAbee had originally pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year suspended sentence, which meant she would not have to serve time in prison if she followed the rules of her probation. However, the state claimed that she broke those rules by committing new crimes. A petition was filed to revoke her suspended sentence, and during the hearing, the judge decided that the evidence collected by the police could still be used in the revocation hearing even if it may have been obtained inappropriately. The judge believed that the police did not act so wrongly that it would be shocking or unfair. After hearing the evidence, the judge found that McAbee had violated her probation. Even though she argued that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation, the court disagreed and said that what was found was enough to prove she broke the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep McAbee's sentence as it was but ordered a correction to the records to show that one of her sentences should actually have been one year instead of five years. The court affirmed the lower court's decision while making this correction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-640, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant had a one-year suspended sentence, and the State filed a request to revoke it. The appellant said he did not do anything wrong and pleaded not guilty. A hearing took place, and the court decided to revoke his sentence. The appellant then appealed this decision. Later, the court found that the first court should not have revoked the sentence because of a timing issue. The appellant's waiver to shorten the waiting period was not done on time. Since this was a mistake, the appeals court decided to dismiss the request to revoke his sentence and canceled the earlier decision. As a result, the appellant's original sentence was not revoked, and he was no longer under that revoked sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0857, #Montgomery appealed his conviction for #Burglary, Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence, but modified the length of the revocation to three years. #One judge dissented. Montgomery had initially pled guilty to burglary and was given a chance to stay out of prison under certain rules for four years. However, he broke the rules multiple times. The state asked the court to impose his sentence because he did not keep a job, did not pay the money he owed, and committed new crimes like driving without a license. The judge revoked a large portion of his sentence for these reasons. On appeal, Montgomery argued that the judge had no right to take away three and a half years of his sentence and that the punishment was too harsh. The court found that while the judge made a mistake in calculating the time, the decision to revoke the sentence was not seen as overly harsh, so they changed the revocation from three and a half years to three years instead.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-399, Ronnie Lamar Coulter appealed his conviction for multiple counts including First Degree Rape and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the original conviction while reversing the conviction for Count 12, which was for Assault with a Deadly Weapon. One judge dissented. Coulter had pleaded guilty to several serious crimes and was sentenced to a total of 200 years in prison. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial court denied this request. His appeal included complaints about the lack of a recorded sentencing hearing, the harshness of his sentence, and the validity of the Count 12 charge. The court found that Coulter had knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that the lack of a recorded hearing did not hinder his ability to appeal. The judges ruled that there wasn’t evidence to suggest that the sentencing was unfair or based on inappropriate information. However, Coulter's appeal concerning Count 12 was granted because the judges agreed that there was no basis for the charge since no battery had been committed as required by law. Thus, the court upheld most of the original convictions but reversed the one regarding Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1481, Anthony John Hathcock appealed his conviction for Omitting To Provide For Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new acceleration hearing. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Hathcock pled no contest to the charges in November 2001 and was given a five-year deferred sentence. This means he didn't go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules, like paying child support. He was supposed to pay $100 a month for current support and catch up on a larger amount he owed. However, the State said he failed to make these payments and asked the court to speed up his sentence, which was called accelerating the sentence. A hearing took place in June 2002 where Hathcock represented himself, meaning he didn't have a lawyer. The judge decided that Hathcock broke the rules of his deferred sentence and sentenced him to one year in prison. Hathcock then appealed this decision, saying three main things. First, he claimed he didn’t effectively waive his right to have a lawyer. Second, he argued that the State didn't provide good evidence to justify speeding up his sentence. Third, he pointed out that it was unclear what his new sentence was supposed to be. The court looked at these claims during the appeal. They agreed with Hathcock that he did not properly waive his right to a lawyer and that this was an important issue. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send it back to the lower court for a new hearing, ensuring that Hathcock would have legal representation this time. Overall, the court's order was that Hathcock's sentence acceleration was not valid as he was not given proper legal help during the initial proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-403, David Lee Maywald appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Registered Sex Offender Working with or Providing Services to Children. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence in Count II to a fine only, while affirming the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. David Lee Maywald, also known as David Lee Graham, was charged with two crimes related to being a registered sex offender. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to prison time and fines. After he changed his mind, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea, feeling he was misinformed about the potential sentences he might face. The court looked closely at Maywald's reasons for wanting to change his plea. First, he argued that he misunderstood the sentencing range for Count II, believing he faced more than just a fine. The court agreed that he shouldn't have received jail time for that count, as the law only allowed for a fine. So, they decided to change his sentence for Count II to just the fine amount. In his second argument, he felt he was misinformed about the maximum fine for Count I. However, the court found that the fine he received was less than what could have been, and since it matched what was agreed upon in the plea deal, it wasn’t a reason to withdraw his plea. For his third point, Maywald argued that he didn’t fully understand the implications of his guilty plea. The court said he didn’t provide enough evidence to show that he entered the plea without understanding its consequences. The court noted that he had been clearly informed multiple times about how he wouldn’t get credit for time served leading up to his sentencing. Overall, while Maywald's request to withdraw his plea was denied, the court acknowledged the error regarding the jail sentence for Count II and modified that sentence to comply with the law. The rest of the decisions from the lower court were kept the same. The judges agreed on most points, but one had a differing opinion on the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1428, Henry C. Flowers, Jr. appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Flowers' conviction but remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Flowers was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His appeal included two main points of error. The first point was that he believed there wasn't enough proof that he made a false declaration to a licensed pawnbroker. He argued that since the employee who helped him at the pawnshop was not a licensed pawnbroker, his actions should not count as a crime. However, the court explained that the law only requires the pawnshop owner to be licensed, not every employee. Therefore, the court felt there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Flowers committed the crime. The second point raised by Flowers was about how the judge handled his sentence. The judge seemed unsure whether he could make Flowers' twenty-year sentence run at the same time as another sentence he already had. The court explained that judges do have the authority to run sentences concurrently and that not knowing this could be an abuse of discretion. Because of this, the case was sent back to the lower court for the judge to review the sentencing again. Overall, the court upheld Flowers' conviction but said the judge needs to reassess how to handle the sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-44, Johnny L. Perry appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for possession of cocaine and modify the conviction for possession of a firearm to reflect a different charge and a lighter sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1370, Oscar Lee Lamb appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Oscar Lee Lamb was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of five years in prison for each count, with the sentences running consecutively. Lamb challenged the trial court's decision on two main points. First, he argued that there was a mistake when some evidence that was not allowed in the trial was taken to the jury room during their discussions. This was seen as a problem, but the court believed it did not cause any harm to Lamb's case since the content of those pieces of evidence had already been discussed during the trial. The second point brought up by Lamb was more serious. He said that a witness who was an expert gave an opinion on whether or not the victim was telling the truth. The court agreed that this was a mistake because experts should not tell the jury what to believe about who is honest or dishonest. This kind of testimony can really affect the jury's decision, particularly when both sides disagree strongly about what happened. Since the court thought the expert's testimony could have made a difference in how the jury viewed the case, they decided that Lamb should have a new trial. Therefore, the previous court's decision was overturned, and the case was sent back for another trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-87, Claude Thomas Gifford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for robbery but affirmed the conviction for assault and battery. One judge dissented. Gifford was found guilty of several crimes after a jury trial in Cleveland County. He received a lengthy sentence of 38 years for robbery and 48 years for assault, among other sentences. Gifford believed he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, as the robbery and the assault were committed against the same victim at the same time. The court agreed that convicting him for both crimes was unfair, as they were not separate acts and violated the law against double punishment. They also found that the other claims made by Gifford did not warrant changes to his convictions or sentences. As a result of the court's review, they reversed the conviction and sentence for robbery and kept the conviction for assault, but adjusted the sentences accordingly.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.