Drive By Shooting

F-2010-665

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-665, Roy C. Williams appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count of his conviction while affirming the others. One judge dissented. Roy C. Williams was sentenced for his involvement in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. Williams was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court of two counts related to using a vehicle in the shooting and one count for murder. The judge sentenced him to a total of eighteen years in prison, which included twelve years for the murder charge and three years for each of the other counts, to be served one after the other. Williams raised several arguments as reasons for appealing his conviction. He believed that his confession to the police should not have been used against him because he claimed he did not have his right to remain silent protected. He also thought that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. Upon reviewing the case, the court decided that the law enforcement officials acted correctly when they obtained Williams's confession. The court said that he willingly talked to them, so this argument was denied. Regarding the second argument, the court noted that Williams knowingly drove to a place where rival gang members were located with guns in the vehicle. This behavior was enough to show he was part of the act that led to the shooting, so this argument was also denied. The third argument was about a legal principle called the merger doctrine. Williams’s defense argued that his felony murder charge should not stand because it was related to the same act as the charge for using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting. However, the court decided to keep the felony murder conviction, stating that both charges could stand because of the way the law is now interpreted. For his fourth argument concerning double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, the court agreed. They stated that the charges were based on the same set of facts, so they could not convict him on both counts pertaining to the same act. Because of this, the conviction for the second count of using a vehicle was reversed. The fifth argument was about whether Williams should receive credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court ruled that it was up to the trial judge to decide whether to grant that credit and found no evidence that the judge made a mistake in denying it. This argument was also denied. The sixth argument claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court found that even if his lawyer made some mistakes, they did not affect the overall outcome of the case. After reviewing all of his arguments, the court decided to reverse the second count concerning the vehicle but kept the murder conviction and the first charge intact. Thus, Williams had mixed results from his appeal, with one conviction dismissed but others upheld. In conclusion, the decision resulted in one count being reversed and the remaining convictions affirmed, meaning Williams would continue to serve his sentence, minus the count that was reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-665

F-2010-495

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-495, Marco Lamonte Carroll appealed his conviction for one count of Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Counts 1 and 3 but reverse Count 2 based on double jeopardy grounds. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty in a case related to a drive-by shooting that led to one person's death and another's injury. The evidence indicated that there were multiple guns in the vehicle, and shots were fired from more than one of them. The jury's conclusion that Carroll participated in the incident was deemed sufficient by the court. Carroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence for the charge of Drive-by Shooting, which also supported his Second-Degree Murder conviction. He believed that the merger doctrine should mean his murder charge couldn't be based on the same act that caused the death, meaning his murder conviction should be vacated. He claimed that being convicted of both murder and using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting violated double jeopardy laws, which protect from being tried for the same crime twice. Finally, he argued that the trial court wrongly refused to give him credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. After looking closely at all the arguments and the case records, the court upheld Carroll's convictions for Second Degree Murder and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm related to the second shooting incident. However, they agreed that counting the charge for the first shooting incident separately violated double jeopardy principles, leading to the reversal of that conviction. Overall, while Carroll's main murder conviction and the second vehicle charge were confirmed, the charge of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm from the first shooting was dismissed. The court concluded that the trial judge had functioned properly regarding the defendant's time served and did not find grounds to change that part of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2010-495

RE 2007-0517

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.

Continue ReadingRE 2007-0517

F-2006-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1055

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2004-1279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1279, Daniel Hawkes Fears appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Murder in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence of sanity at the time of the crimes, ordering a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. One judge dissented, arguing that the jury should have had the proper instructions for a retrial instead of this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1279

F-2001-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-651, Vadell Lamont Wright appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions. One judge dissented. Wright was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of twenty years for the unauthorized use of a vehicle and twenty-five years for using a vehicle in connection with the discharge of a firearm, with both sentences to be served one after the other. He decided to appeal his convictions. The court reviewed several claims raised by Wright regarding his trial. The main issues included: 1. Seeing the defendant in handcuffs could have influenced the jury. 2. There was not enough evidence to say that Wright used the vehicle to make the shooting easier. 3. The court did not allow the defendant to explain his belief that he was allowed to use the car, known as a defense of mistake. 4. Evidence about other crimes affected Wright's right to a fair trial. 5. Communication between the jury and the trial judge was improper. 6. The trial court made mistakes regarding immunity for a co-defendant. 7. The jury was not given the option of lesser charges. 8. Overall, multiple errors deprived Wright of a fair trial. Focusing on the second issue, the court noted that Wright used a stolen vehicle to flee from police. He was in the vehicle with another person who fired a gun at an officer during the chase. However, the court found that simply using the car did not meet the legal requirement that it had to help make the shooting occur. There wasn’t enough evidence to show that the act of using the car was linked to the shooting directly. Additionally, in regards to possible mistakes about using the vehicle, the trial court's instructions did not help the jury understand what was being asked about having permission to use the car. Wright believed he had permission from the person who was with him and thought he could use the vehicle, but the trial court did not clearly explain this possibility to the jury. As a result, the court decided to reverse Wright's conviction for shooting from a vehicle and dismissed that charge. They also decided to send the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle charge back for a new trial, stating that the earlier jury did not get all the right information to make a fair decision. In conclusion, the court found that Wright should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented and that he deserved a chance to argue his case again in a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-651

J-2001-80

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-80, B. D. S. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court’s order denying his motion for certification as a youthful offender and remand the case for certification. One judge dissented. The case began when B. D. S. was charged as an adult with a serious crime. He wanted to be recognized as a youthful offender instead of being treated like an adult in the legal system. The court had to decide whether he should be classified as a youthful offender, which could mean a different kind of punishment and possible help for rehabilitation. B. D. S. argued that the trial court made mistakes. He said the court did not follow the rules about notifying his family of his rights regarding the case, and he claimed his lawyer did not do enough to defend him by speaking up about this issue. After listening to the arguments, the court found that the trial court did not provide proper notice to B. D. S.’s parents or guardian. This lack of communication meant that he might not have received a fair chance in court. The judges agreed that this was important and decided that B. D. S. should be given another chance to be classified as a youthful offender. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge believed that the trial court's decision not to classify B. D. S. as a youthful offender was the right choice. This judge thought that the evidence showed B. D. S. had committed a serious crime in a cold and calculated way, and that he had a history of violent behavior, which warranted treating him as an adult. The dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of public safety and questioned whether B. D. S. could be rehabilitated. In summary, the court’s majority agreed that B. D. S. should be treated as a youthful offender for a fresh evaluation, while the dissenting judge maintained that the evidence showed he should remain classified as an adult.

Continue ReadingJ-2001-80