Due Process

F 2005-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.

Continue ReadingF 2005-651

C-2005-311

  • Post author:
  • 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence.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.

Continue ReadingC-2005-311

F-2004-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-874, Pierson appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Deitric Benard Pierson was found guilty of sexually abusing a twelve-year-old girl, referred to as L.H. The case started when L.H. told her mother that Pierson had done something inappropriate to her. She explained to her mother and grandmother that he had pulled her pants down and touched her with his private parts. There was also DNA evidence that connected Pierson to the abuse. During the trial, the girl did not testify herself, but her statements to her mother, grandmother, and a social worker were presented as evidence. Pierson argued that this was unfair because he could not cross-examine the girl, which is normally his right in court. The court decided that the girl's statements were reliable and allowed them to be presented. Pierson raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the way jurors were chosen was unfair because some were removed based on race. He also argued that he should have been informed about how much time he needed to serve before being eligible for parole. Additionally, he felt that his sentence was too harsh and should be changed. After looking at all the issues, the court concluded that most of the problems Pierson pointed out were not strong enough to change the decision. They recognized that the failure to inform the jury about parole eligibility was a mistake and adjusted his sentence from life in prison to thirty years. However, one judge thought that changing the sentence was not correct because the jury had decided he should spend life in prison, and he felt that altering that decision disregarded the jury's authority. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed to change the length of the sentence, allowing Pierson a chance for parole after serving thirty years instead of life in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2004-874

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F-2005-814

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-814, James Joseph Wymer appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Wymer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. He argued that the jury was not fully instructed about the law regarding his sentence, which meant he wasn't told he had to serve eighty-five percent of it. He also felt that his sentence was too long and that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After looking closely at both the facts and the law, the court believed that the jury should have been informed about the eighty-five percent rule, but they did not think this mistake was enough to set aside the conviction. Therefore, they decided to lower Wymer's sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years. The court also considered whether his sentence was excessive. They found that given Wymer's past convictions, the sentence was fair and not shocking or unreasonable. Finally, they reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was enough proof to show that Wymer took part in the burglary rather than just standing by. The final decision was to keep the conviction but change the punishment to thirty-five years.

Continue ReadingF-2005-814

F 2005-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.

Continue ReadingF 2005-41

F-2005-314

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.

Continue ReadingF-2005-314

F-2005-422

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-422, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences for certain counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Jerry Lee Mays, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to several years in prison, varying by count. Appellant believed that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support his conviction for shooting with intent to kill. He argued that there was no proof of his intent to kill a specific person when he fired his weapon. Mays also claimed that his convictions violated double jeopardy laws, which protect individuals from being tried for the same crime multiple times. He argued that he should not be punished for both possession of a firearm and shooting with intent to kill since they were related offenses. Additionally, he felt that his punishment for possession of a firearm was excessive, that the jury should not have considered assault and battery as a lesser offense, and that the jury did not receive adequate instructions about his right to a fair trial. The court carefully reviewed Mays's arguments and considered all the evidence from the trial. They found that the jury had enough evidence to convict him of shooting with intent to kill. Even though Mays focused on the victim’s perception of his actions, the law does not depend solely on that view but considers all evidence as part of understanding a defendant's intent. The court also concluded that Mays's double jeopardy claim did not hold since he committed two separate offenses at different times. The first offense was possessing the firearm, and the second offense was shooting at people, which were considered distinct. In terms of sentencing, the court recognized that Mays's conviction for possession relied on prior felony convictions, which were also used in different charges. However, they concluded this did not unfairly impact his sentence. Important to note was that the trial court had made an error in telling the jury that Mays's conviction for assault and battery could be enhanced due to previous felonies, which was incorrect for a misdemeanor charge. The judges found that this error did not change the overall outcome significantly, so it was ruled as harmless. They did acknowledge a need to change the length of Mays's sentence for shooting with intent to kill from forty years to thirty years for each of those counts due to one of Mays's points about jury instructions that were missed. Ultimately, the court affirmed most of Mays's convictions and modified some sentences. Despite some errors, the judges felt that Mays received a fair trial overall, and the necessary adjustments to his sentences did not warrant a full new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-422

F-2004-997

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.

Continue ReadingF-2004-997

F-2004-1081

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1081, Charles Edward Moore, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and modify some sentences. One of the judges dissented. Charles Edward Moore faced serious charges and was found guilty by a jury. He received a total of fourteen years for each robbery, ten years for each kidnapping, and ten years for possession of a firearm related to a past felony. The judge ordered that Moore serve these sentences one after the other. On appeal, Moore argued several points. First, he believed he was unfairly punished for two separate robbery counts concerning the same incident. However, the court decided that this did not violate any laws about double punishments. Next, Moore claimed a conflict between his robbery conviction and the charge for possession after a felony. The court agreed with Moore regarding this point and reversed his conviction for that charge. Additionally, Moore argued that the trial court made an error by not allowing a jury instruction about his eligibility for parole. The court found this to be a mistake but decided to change the sentences for the robbery convictions from fourteen years to ten years each. The court maintained the trial judge's decision to have the sentences served consecutively. Moore also argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer, but the court believed that his case would not have ended differently even with better representation. He further disagreed with the court's admission of evidence about his past wrongdoings, but the court denied that claim too. Lastly, Moore asserted that the combined errors during his trial should lead to a reversal. The court disagreed and upheld the decisions made during the trial. In summary, while the court agreed to modify some of Moore's sentences, it affirmed most of the convictions and found no significant errors that would affect the overall outcome of the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1081

M 2005-0332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0332

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2005-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-619

F 2004-1238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1238, James Alan Wade appealed his conviction for Embezzlement of Rented Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Mr. Wade was found guilty by a jury of embezzling a rented car and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove his prior felony convictions and that his sentence was too harsh. He also argued that his lawyer didn’t do enough to protect his rights during the trial. The court looked closely at whether there was enough proof that Mr. Wade had committed the crime he was accused of. One key point was whether the car he rented was valued correctly according to the law. The court found that the prosecution didn't provide evidence proving the car's value was over $1,000, which is necessary for the embezzlement charge. Because of this lack of evidence, the court decided that Mr. Wade should not have been convicted and ordered that the case be dismissed. The dissenting judge, however, thought that there was enough evidence for the jury to make their decision and believed the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1238

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F 2004-989

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.

Continue ReadingF 2004-989

F-2004-1080

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1080

RE-2004-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-1015

F-2004-1271

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1271, Darrell Antonio Cheadle appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences were modified to life in prison for each count, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. One judge dissented, stating that the delay before the trial was prejudicial to the defendant's defense, but agreed that the evidence of guilt was very strong.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1271

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F-2004-1112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1112

F-2004-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-825