In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-352, Virgil Clayton Rose appealed his conviction for several crimes, including the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court found that some of these convictions violated rules against being punished twice for the same crime. The court agreed with the appeal and reversed the convictions for possession of methamphetamine and the precursor substance. The court modified the sentence for possession of a firearm while committing a felony to five years. One judge disagreed with the decision on certain points but agreed with the overall outcome.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-336, Roger Allen Eddy, Jr. appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, reverse his convictions for possession of a precursor substance and possession of methamphetamine, and modify his sentence for possession of a firearm to five years. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.
In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1634, Edgar Lee Rucker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Rucker was found guilty by a jury for selling methamphetamine and was sentenced to twelve years in prison along with a $10,000 fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to marijuana possession. Rucker argued several points in his appeal, claiming violations of his rights during the trial. The first point raised was that it was wrong for both the drug offense and habitual offender statutes to be used in his sentencing. The court acknowledged this as an error but stated that it only affected the fine; they reduced the fine to $2,500 since it was incorrectly calculated originally. Rucker also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a habitual offender. However, the court found that the State provided enough evidence regarding his past convictions. He claimed that evidence about his previous bad behavior should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court determined it was relevant for understanding the case. Rucker believed that there was a mismatch between the charges and the evidence, but the court concluded the evidence was consistent with the allegations. Another argument was that his lawyer didn’t do a good job representing him. They noted that while the lawyer should have objected more, it didn’t significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Rucker contended that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, but the court found that any mistakes made were corrected and did not deny him a fair trial. Finally, Rucker argued that all the errors combined made the trial unfair, but the court decided that the only significant error was the fine and adjusted it accordingly. In summary, the court upheld Rucker’s prison sentence but modified the fine.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1262, Robert Anthony Lamar appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Robert Anthony Lamar was found guilty by a jury of taking a U-Haul truck without permission. He claimed he only wanted to drive the truck to see what it felt like and intended to return it right after. The jury believed that he did not intend to keep the truck permanently, but the trial court did not let the jury consider a possible lesser charge of joyriding. Lamar raised several points in his appeal. He argued that it was unfair for the court to give the instructions it did without his request and that there wasn’t enough proof to show he meant to keep the truck. But the main issue was that he should have been able to have a chance to be judged on the lesser offense of joyriding, since his actions matched that claim too. The court found that joyriding was indeed a valid option for the jury to consider, and since the jury’s decision did not support the idea of him wanting to permanently take the truck, he deserved a fair chance to contest the lesser charge. Because of this, the court ruled that the prior judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1257, the appellant appealed her conviction for furnishing beer to a person under twenty-one years of age. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to one year, which was suspended, meaning she would not have to serve time right away as long as she followed certain rules. However, later, the state said she had broken those rules and asked the court to revoke her suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge decided she had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail with a part of that sentence suspended. The appellant appealed this decision, saying the court did not have the right to change her original sentence and that there wasn't enough proof of her violation. She also argued that she didn't receive proper notice about the reasons for her revocation, which is important for due process. The court agreed with her on the fact that the state did not provide enough evidence to support the revocation of her sentence. Due to this, the court decided to reverse the previous decision and instructed the lower court to dismiss the revocation order.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1422, Crider appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Crider was found guilty of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter, Crystal Dittmeyer, after she went missing in 1996. In trial, the evidence against him included blood found in their home and in his car, as well as a patterned injury on Crider's arm that was argued to be a bite mark from Crystal. The prosecution claimed Crider transported her body in a garment bag and disposed of it. Crider raised several issues in his appeal, including concerns about the reliability of expert testimony that suggested the bite mark on his arm could have come from Crystal. The court found that the expert methods used were not scientifically reliable and did not help the jury understand the evidence. This issue alone warranted a reversal of the conviction. Additionally, the court identified errors in admitting evidence related to luminol tests, which suggested the presence of blood in Crider's car but later tests were inconclusive. The admission of testimony related to a rural area where Crystal's body was not found was also seen as prejudicial and misleading. Overall, the court determined that the combination of these errors negatively impacted Crider's right to a fair trial. The ruling emphasized the need for reliable and helpful expert evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The court called for a new trial to ensure Crider received a fair hearing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-991, Tammy Renee Baldwin appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled and dangerous substance (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the marijuana charge and affirmed the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Tammy Baldwin was found guilty of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana in Oklahoma. The jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for methamphetamine and 1 year in jail for marijuana, and the sentences were to be served one after the other. Baldwin raised several points in her appeal. First, she argued that her two convictions violated the double jeopardy rule, which means you can’t be punished more than once for the same offense. She believed that because both drugs were found in the same place, it should be treated as one act. Second, she claimed her rights were violated because the judge had already decided to give her consecutive sentences if she was found guilty, which she felt was unfair. Third, Baldwin thought the judge made a mistake by not letting the jury hear her side of the story, specifically by refusing to give instructions about circumstantial evidence. Fourth, she argued that the evidence obtained from her purse should not have been allowed in the trial because it violated her rights against illegal searches. Lastly, she felt that all these errors combined made the trial unfair, which denied her due process. After looking closely at Baldwin’s case, the court agreed that the two convictions for possession were wrong because they were based on the same act of possession. The court decided that having both drugs in one place meant she could only be charged with one count of possession, not two. Due to this, they reversed the marijuana conviction but kept the methamphetamine conviction and the 20-year prison sentence. The judge's other points were either not decided or did not matter because of this main decision about the double jeopardy issue. The final outcome was that Baldwin's sentence for methamphetamine stayed, but the marijuana charge was dismissed, meaning she didn’t have to serve time for that. One judge disagreed with the majority decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-335, Alfred Lee Horn appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, and Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be modified to twenty years each.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.
In OCCA case No. F-1999-1084, Jesse Stanard appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill and two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for the first count and remand it for a new trial, but affirmed the convictions for the other two counts. One judge dissented.