Driving Under The Influence Archives - Page 3 of 3

F-2001-210

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.

RE 2001-0540

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.

RE 2001-0351

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 25, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 27, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.

C-2000-1344

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-00-1344, Betts appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Assault on a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for relief regarding some of the convictions due to a lack of adequate factual support for those charges. One judge dissented. Betts had pleaded guilty to several charges in a lower court, but later claimed he did not understand all the details of the offenses or the punishments he could receive. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied by the district court. The case was then brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court looked at the reasons Betts provided for wanting to withdraw his plea. One of the main issues was that there was not enough factual evidence to support certain charges against him. For instance, when Betts admitted some wrongdoing, he did not talk about other specific charges like the drug possession or tampering with a vehicle. The court found that because of this, Betts did not really enter his plea to those counts in a fair way. While the court affirmed one of his convictions related to Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, they reversed other convictions regarding Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and related charges. The court also mentioned that there were problems with how restitution was handled, which means determining if and how much money Betts should pay for what he did. Overall, the court sent the case back to the district court to ensure that the restitution issues were corrected and to check if the earlier order of restitution was appropriate for the right case. The court set a timeframe for the district court to work on these issues. In summary, the court found that Betts was not properly informed or supported for several of the charges against him, leading them to reverse some of his convictions while affirming one, and they ordered further hearings on the restitution matter.