District Court Archives - Page 29 of 29

F-2000-671

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.

RE-2001-318

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.

F-1999-1615

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1615, Jackie Lavern Nuckols appealed his conviction for Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Nuckols was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a $100,000 fine. He appealed his conviction, raising several issues. First, he argued that old convictions were unfairly used against him, which should not have been allowed. The court agreed that this was not right since the old convictions could have influenced the jury too much. However, they also said that this alone didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Second, there was a problem with evidence about another crime that was brought up during the trial. The court found that this evidence was not appropriate but decided that it didn't have a big impact on the jury’s decision. Third, Nuckols thought that his fine was too high and should be changed, but the court did not agree with this point. Fourth, he claimed that he didn't have enough help from his lawyer when he needed it. The court said that even though his lawyer might not have done everything perfectly, it didn’t hurt Nuckols' chance for a fair trial. His lawyer had a chance to represent him in other important parts of the trial. Lastly, Nuckols felt that when all of these issues were looked at together, they took away his right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that some mistakes were made, especially about the old convictions and the mention of another crime, and they concluded that these combined errors were serious enough to justify a new trial. All in all, the court decided to reverse Nuckols’ conviction and said he should have a new trial to properly address these issues.

C-2000-35

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-35, Anthony Dwayne Goshay appealed his conviction for escape from county jail and assault on a correctional officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Goshay's appeal and reverse the lower court's decision. One judge dissented. Goshay was in Comanche County District Court, where he pled guilty to two charges on October 7, 1999. At his sentencing on October 20, 1999, he tried to take back his guilty plea, but the judge did not allow it. Instead, Goshay was sentenced to five years for escape and three years for assault. After some time, his lawyer and then Goshay himself asked to withdraw the plea, but those requests were denied in December 1999. The case was sent back to the district court in August 2000 to check if Goshay was present when his request to withdraw the plea was denied. A new hearing took place on October 2, 2000, but the judge again said no to Goshay's request to change his plea. On appeal, Goshay argued that his plea wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured, that he was not informed about all the important parts of the charges he faced, and that his convictions were unfair because they involved double punishment. The court looked closely at these claims and agreed that Goshay's plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. It decided that when Goshay made his guilty plea, he was promised he could change his mind at sentencing without any negative consequences. However, when he did try to back out during sentencing, he wasn't given that chance. Therefore, the court found that Goshay didn't receive the deal he was promised. In conclusion, the OCCA reversed the original conviction and said further actions should follow that are consistent with their opinion, meaning Goshay would have the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, as originally agreed.

RE 2000-0688

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.

F 2000-152

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.

F 2000-0310

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.

RE-2000-1010

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-920

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-920, Robert Lerone Mims appealed his conviction for violating probation terms. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of three years of Appellant's suspended sentence and remand the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.

RE-2000-252

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-252, Kenneth Bristol appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. No one dissented. Kenneth Bristol was sentenced to serve five years, with a part of the sentence suspended while he followed rules of probation. He had a tough time fulfilling the probation conditions. The state claimed he did not show up for appointments and failed to pay restitution. This led to an application to revoke his suspended sentence. When Bristol was arrested, the court held several hearings but did not finalize his case right away. There were discussions about his appeal, but it wasn’t clear whether it was processed correctly. The court noted that Bristol was not given a fair chance to appeal the earlier decision to reject his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The higher court found that there was not enough evidence to show his suspended sentence was revoked properly. They reversed the lower court's decision and told them to look into the case again, allowing Bristol another chance to appeal his previous decision.

RE-2000-1034

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.

RE 2000-0434

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 9, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.

RE-2000-841

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-841, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided that the appellant's revoked sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

F-1999-1465

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1465, Sean Michael Johnson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Johnson's conviction for First Degree Rape to Second Degree Rape and reduce his sentence to five years. The judgments and sentences for the other counts were affirmed. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the handling of juvenile procedures in this case.

C-2000-750

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 5, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.

RE-1999-1556

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 1, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-1999-1556, an individual appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified it to time served, including the satisfaction of all fines, fees, and costs. No judges dissented.

M-2000-115

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 31, 2001
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2000-115, the person appealed his conviction for assault and battery, assault upon a peace officer, and malicious injury to property, along with two counts of domestic abuse - assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions except for one count of domestic abuse, which was reversed with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case took place in the District Court of Seminole County, where the appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial. He was sentenced to time in jail and fines for his crimes, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. During the appeal, the appellant raised two main arguments. First, he claimed that two counts of assault and battery were unfair because they stemmed from the same incident. Second, he argued there was not enough evidence to prove he intended to assault a police officer. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that the two counts of domestic abuse arose from one incident and that the state had not properly informed the appellant about these charges, so the conviction for that count was reversed. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support the other convictions. In summary, except for one count of domestic abuse that was reversed, the court upheld the other convictions.

M-1999-569

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 31, 2001
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 99-0569, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Two judges dissented.

F-2000-282

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-282, Sidney Wayne Clark appealed his conviction for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer and Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Clark's sentence for Count I to one year in the County Jail and for Count II to one year imprisonment, with both sentences to run consecutively. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-630

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-630, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug. In a published decision, the court decided that it was an error for the lower court to revoke the appellant's suspended sentence because the original case had been dismissed. The court found that the trial court did not have the authority to accept a plea or impose a sentence in the dismissed case, which meant the lower court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the order revoking the suspended sentence was vacated. One judge dissented.

M-2000-230

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2001
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2000-230, Frank Ford appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentence and order that it be aligned with the jury's verdict. One judge dissented.

F-1999-1260

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 3, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1260, Carl Ray Holmes appealed his conviction for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for the first two counts but reversed the marijuana possession conviction, ordering a new trial for that count. One judge dissented regarding the second count, suggesting it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns.

F-1999-1652

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1652, Mickey Lee Cosar appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that his termination from the Drug Court program was not handled correctly and mandated a new termination hearing with proper notice. One judge dissented. The case began when Cosar entered a blind plea to the drug charges in September 1998 as part of a condition to join the Drug Court program, which allows individuals to receive treatment instead of immediate punishment. However, during the process, certain legal requirements were not met. A hearing in April 1999 determined that Cosar should be removed from the Drug Court program, which led to a sentencing hearing in May 1999 where he was sentenced to life in prison despite not having any prior serious convictions. On appeal, Cosar argued that he was denied due process because he was improperly arrested, was not given proper notice of the charges against him, and was not presented a fair hearing before a judge. He contended that his sentence was too harsh given his background and that it was improperly based on unproven allegations. The court found merit in Cosar’s claims. It noted that he did not receive written notice of the termination hearing, which is necessary, and that his due process rights were violated. The court emphasized that to follow proper legal procedures, a new hearing must be held where Cosar would receive notice of the reasons for his termination from the Drug Court. This notice must be clear enough for him to prepare a defense. Moreover, the court stated that the sentencing hearing was flawed because the judge considered improper evidence and unsworn testimony. The judge based the harsh life sentence on matters unrelated to the charges for which Cosar was convicted, including knowledge of allegations of a rape and murder that were not properly vetted in court. The decision noted that a judge should only consider evidence presented during the formal hearing process, which did not happen here. The court’s ruling ordered a new termination and, if necessary, a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge who would base the decision solely on the evidence presented appropriately. The conclusion stressed the importance of following the law to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, particularly within programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders. In summary, Cosar’s appeal highlighted the need for proper legal procedures in termination and sentencing hearings, emphasizing the rights of defendants to fair treatment under the law.

O-98-461

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 1999
Post category:O

In OCCA case No. O-98-461, Johnnie Edward Romo appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership and Embezzlement by Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order and judgment that revoked his suspended sentences. No justices dissented. Johnnie Romo had originally pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence for his crimes. However, the state later sought to revoke this suspended sentence after he did not comply with the rules of probation. The appeal focused on two main points: first, that the state took too long to act on the motion to revoke his sentence, and second, that there was a promise made regarding reducing sentences if he admitted to the allegations. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the state did not act quickly enough and allowed Romo's suspended sentences to expire without bringing him to court in a timely manner. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke the sentences and instructed that the case be dismissed.