Drug Treatment Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2019-19

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:July 30, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

RE-2010-762

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.

C-2005-311

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:June 29, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.