In OCCA case No. F-2000-1339, Harold Lee Cooper, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court affirmed his conviction for possession of cocaine but reversed and dismissed the conviction for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-483, Debra Gorrell appealed her conviction for several drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of Gorrell's convictions but affirmed the others. One judge dissented. Debra Gorrell was found guilty of crimes including unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and other drug-related charges. She was sentenced to a total of many years in prison. During her appeal, Gorrell raised several arguments against her convictions. Gorrell argued that the court shouldn't have allowed evidence about her past crimes. She also said she was punished too many times for the same actions and claimed that part of the law used against her was unfair. She disputed the evidence stating she had methamphetamine in front of a child, claimed the testimonies used against her weren't reliable, and said the jury wasn't properly instructed about the crimes. The court reviewed all arguments and found that most of Gorrell's claims did not hold up. They decided that the evidence against her was strong enough for the other convictions. However, they found that Gorrell's conviction for maintaining a dwelling for drug use was not fair, and this conviction was reversed. In the end, the court upheld her other convictions but ordered a new trial for the one related to maintaining a dwelling for drug use.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-805, Dustin Loy Wells appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction related to assault. One judge dissented on the decision to reverse that conviction. Dustin Loy Wells was tried in a jury trial and found guilty of multiple charges. The trial court then sentenced him to a total of forty-five years in prison and imposed several fines. Wells believed he was unfairly convicted and claimed there were mistakes made during his trial. He raised several points of error on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court should have separated (or severed) his different charges for trial, but the court found that joining them was appropriate. Second, he said there was a mistake when certain identification evidence was allowed. While the court agreed this was an error, it was considered harmless because there was strong other evidence against him. Third, Wells argued that there was not enough evidence to support one of his assault convictions and the court agreed, reversing that specific conviction. Further, he contended that some evidence should not have been admitted at all, but the court found that the trial court had made the right decision. Wells also claimed there was not enough proof that he intended to kill when he shot someone, but the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion. Wells pointed to what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct, claiming he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor had made improper statements about him. However, the court decided that these actions did not change the outcome of the trial. Finally, he claimed that the combined errors were serious enough to warrant a new trial, but the court found that only one conviction needed to be reversed. In summary, while the court upheld most of Wells’s conviction and sentence, it found that one of the assault convictions should be dismissed. One judge disagreed with this part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-991, Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the marijuana charge and affirmed the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Tammy Baldwin was found guilty of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana in Oklahoma. The jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in jail for marijuana, and the sentences were to be served one after the other. Baldwin raised several points in her appeal. First, she argued that her two convictions violated the double jeopardy rule, which means you can’t be punished more than once for the same offense. She believed that because both drugs were found in the same place, it should be treated as one act. Second, she claimed her rights were violated because the judge had already decided to give her consecutive sentences if she was found guilty, which she felt was unfair. Third, Baldwin thought the judge made a mistake by not letting the jury hear her side of the story, specifically by refusing to give instructions about circumstantial evidence. Fourth, she argued that the evidence obtained from her purse should not have been allowed in the trial because it violated her rights against illegal searches. Lastly, she felt that all these errors combined made the trial unfair, which denied her due process. After looking closely at Baldwin’s case, the court agreed that the two convictions for possession were wrong because they were based on the same act of possession. The court decided that having both drugs in one place meant she could only be charged with one count of possession, not two. Due to this, they reversed the marijuana conviction but kept the methamphetamine conviction and the 20-year prison sentence. The judge's other points were either not decided or did not matter because of this main decision about the double jeopardy issue. The final outcome was that Baldwin's sentence for methamphetamine stayed, but the marijuana charge was dismissed, meaning she didn’t have to serve time for that. One judge disagreed with the majority decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1427, John Vernon Dubiel appealed his conviction for possession of forged evidences of debt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm one count of the conviction but vacated two counts. One judge dissented on the issue of sentencing. Dubiel was charged with three counts of possessing forged checks. At trial, the jury found him guilty of all counts and recommended a long sentence for each, which the judge imposed to run one after the other. After Dubiel appealed, he argued that he was unfairly punished twice for the same crime and that the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed with Dubiel on the double jeopardy argument, stating that the law allows for only one punishment for having several forged checks at the same time. Because of this, they decided to cancel two of the counts against him but upheld the conviction for the first count. The court also found that any references to Dubiel's personal drug use during the trial were not significant enough to impact the fairness of the trial. Lastly, since they reduced his conviction, they did not need to further discuss the claim about excessive sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1313, Robert Guy Wisner appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for the conviction of attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of marijuana, but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, instructing to dismiss that count. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.
In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-692, Donald Gean Miller appealed his conviction for escape from the county jail and injury to a public building. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for escape but modified the sentence for injury to a public building to run concurrently with the escape sentence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for the escape conviction be reduced from 200 years to 45 years and believed that the injury to a public building conviction violated legal statutes.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-434, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of a particular charge. William Forrest Mondier was found guilty of attempting to make drugs, possessing drugs, and allowing a place for drug users. The court looked at his case and found mistakes in how the jury was instructed regarding one of the charges. Because the jury didn't have the right information, they couldn't properly decide if Mondier had acted knowingly or intentionally when maintaining a place used for drugs. Therefore, that conviction was reversed. The court also found that Mondier's possession of marijuana and methamphetamine was too similar to keep both convictions, so they reversed one of them. However, his other convictions, including drug manufacturing and possession of drug paraphernalia, remained in place, as there was enough evidence against him for those charges. There were also several arguments raised by the appellant about the fairness of his trial and the enforcement of laws regarding the charges, but the court denied those claims. The final decision was to reverse and dismiss the charge of maintaining a place for drug users and the marijuana charge. The convictions for attempting to manufacture drugs and possessing paraphernalia were affirmed. One judge disagreed with the dismissal and wanted a new trial instead.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 99-1293, #1 appealed his conviction for #4 counts of Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 counts were affirmed and #1 count was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. #0 dissented. #1, William Dean Carter, was found guilty in a jury trial after being accused of committing inappropriate acts against children. These acts happened a long time ago, but the case took a while to come to court. Carter was sentenced to several years in prison for his crimes. Carter claimed that his rights were violated during the trial. He said he should not have been charged because the time limit for bringing the case to court had passed. He also argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. The court looked closely at all the details of the case. They found that for two of the counts against Carter, the prosecution was valid, but for the other two, the time limit had expired. Because of this, those two counts were dismissed. The judges felt that the evidence against Carter was strong enough for some of the charges, even if there were some errors during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that two of Carter's convictions would stay, but the other two would be thrown out and should not continue in court.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-515, Larry Alan Schroeder appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including burglary and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and sentences but reversed some related to specific counts due to insufficient evidence and legal issues. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of certain burglary counts, believing there was enough evidence to support those convictions. Ultimately, some charges were upheld while others were dismissed, shaping the outcome of the appeal.
In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.