Drug Use

F-2017-911

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-911, the appellant appealed his conviction for various offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, previously convicted of two counts of Second Degree Burglary, was sentenced to twenty-one years for each count but with most of that time suspended. While under supervision, the appellant was accused of violating the terms of his release due to new criminal charges. He later pleaded guilty to those new charges as well. To avoid serving the full sentences, the appellant entered a Drug Court program aimed at helping him overcome substance abuse issues. However, after several years in the program, he faced multiple sanctions for drug use and missed compliance with program rules. Eventually, the state moved to terminate him from Drug Court, asserting he had violated several agreements tied to his participation. During the hearing to decide whether he should be removed from the program, the trial judge ultimately decided that the appellant had not adequately followed the rules and terminated his participation. The appellant then argued that the judge should have considered giving him additional chances rather than terminating him outright. The court checked to see if the trial judge had abused his discretion, meaning if the judge made a choice that was unreasonable or did not follow the law. The records showed the appellant had been sanctioned several times over his three years in the program, but he continued to struggle with drug use. The court found no evidence that the judge had failed to weigh all the necessary factors before deciding to end the appellant's time in Drug Court. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to terminate the appellant from the Drug Court program, stating that the earlier judgments regarding his sentence also needed no changes since the mistakes made in paperwork were corrected. Therefore, the appeal was largely dismissed as moot.

Continue ReadingF-2017-911

F-2007-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-336, Michelle Ann Barry appealed her conviction for First-Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Michelle Ann Barry was found guilty of murdering her infant daughter, Andrea Heath. The jury decided on a life sentence for Barry. Barry argued that the evidence against her was not strong enough to prove she was guilty. Her main point was that the evidence only suggested she might be guilty but did not rule out other possibilities of who could have harmed her child. The court explained that it had to look at the evidence in a way that favored the state. They concluded that the jury could have believed Barry was the one who harmed her daughter. This was largely because the only other person awake during the incident was Barry's five-year-old son, who was too small to cause the injuries. Barry also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job defending her in court. To win this point, she had to show that her lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes changed the outcome of her case. She pointed out that her lawyer failed to object to certain evidence that could have hurt her chances in the trial, like bad character evidence about her lifestyle and drug use. The court agreed with Barry that her lawyer's performance was lacking. They noted that her lawyer didn’t challenge negative testimony that could mislead the jury, and importantly, did not find experts to counter the claims made about her son’s physical inability to cause the injuries. Due to the many mistakes made by her lawyer during the trial, the court felt that Barry's conviction couldn’t stand. They reversed her conviction which means she would have a chance at a new trial to present her case again. One judge dissented, believing that the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2007-336

F-2000-1427

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1427