Due Process Archives - Page 6 of 14

F-2015-457

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 20, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-457, Christopher Wayne Goldman appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Sodomy, and Incest. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions for the first three counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Incest. One member of the court dissented. Goldman was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses against his niece. The jury recommended prison sentences that ran together for counts related to rape, sodomy, and separately for the count of incest. Goldman raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt for some charges, that unfair evidence was presented, that the prosecutor acted improperly, and that he did not receive adequate help from his attorney during the trial. The court agreed that the incest conviction should be reversed because it was based on the same act as the rape, which is not allowed by law. This meant Goldman was improperly punished for two things for doing one act, which is unfair. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Sodomy, stating that a jury could reasonably decide he was guilty based on the evidence presented. Goldman's claims about the prosecution and defense lawyer's conduct were reviewed, but the court found that the lawyers acted within their rights. The evidence of Goldman’s behavior after he was accused, which included uncomfortable actions in a police room, was allowed in the trial since it showed his possible guilt. In conclusion, while Goldman did not get relief for all his claims, the court recognized an important mistake about the incest charge and fixed it by not allowing that conviction to stand.

S-2015-672

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 15, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

F 2015-121

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 19, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

F-2014-764

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-764, Hawks appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count I, which was the murder conviction, but affirmed Counts II, III, and IV, which were the burglary and kidnapping convictions. One judge dissented on the reversal of the murder conviction. Hawks was accused of being involved in serious crimes, including murder, along with two other co-defendants. After being found guilty by a jury, Hawks was sentenced to a long prison term, with the murder sentence being life imprisonment. Hawks argued that the evidence against her was weak, claiming she didn’t participate in the crimes or know about them beforehand. She believed the jury wasn't given a fair chance to make their decision because the prosecution made mistakes in explaining the law regarding aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting means that someone helped or supported a crime, even if they weren't the main person committing it. For Hawks to be found guilty, the evidence needed to show she had some knowledge or intent to support the crimes of her co-defendants, which involved planning and executing the murder and kidnappings. However, the court found that there were major issues with how the prosecutors explained the law, which misled the jury. The judges agreed that the jury may not have properly understood the law because the prosecutor repeatedly misstated it, even if the jury was given the correct instructions. As a result, the court agreed to give Hawks a new trial for the murder charge. For the kidnapping and burglary charges, the evidence seemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so those were upheld. In conclusion, while Hawks' murder conviction was reversed for a new trial due to errors in how the law was presented to the jury, her other convictions were confirmed as valid. One judge disagreed with reversing the murder conviction, believing that the verdict was just and the evidence against Hawks clear.

F-2015-374

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-374, Jerrell Otis Thomas appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm, but to reverse the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jerrell Otis Thomas was found guilty by a jury for three serious crimes. The main issue was whether he was being punished too harshly for his actions. He argued that he should not have been convicted for both Shooting with Intent to Kill and Robbery with a Weapon because they were connected, like two parts of the same event. The court agreed with him on this point and felt that, under the law, he should not be punished twice for what they saw as one act. Thomas also claimed that he did not get a fair trial because the public was kept out of the courtroom while a key witness testified. The court looked into this and decided that the closure was justified due to threats made against the witness, ensuring their safety. He further claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. After considering all the facts, the court found that his lawyer did their job okay, and there wasn't enough evidence to show he was harmed by their actions. Finally, the judge determined that the way Thomas's sentences were set to run (one after another) was acceptable, even though they reversed one of his convictions, meaning he would serve less time than originally planned for that charge. Overall, Thomas won on one point regarding his robbery conviction, meaning that part of the punishment was taken away, but his other convictions were upheld. The court’s decisions aimed to ensure no unfair punishment occurred while also maintaining the law's integrity.

RE-2014-371

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 6, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.

PC-2015-6

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2015
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.

J-2015-353

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

C 2014-920

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

C-2014-584

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-584, Gilbert Paz appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, Conspiracy, Attempted Robbery with a Firearm, and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the District Court's denial of Paz's Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. One member of the court dissented. Gilbert Paz was involved in a serious crime case where he initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges. After some time, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas, claiming that he didn’t fully understand what he was doing when he agreed to the plea deal. He felt confused and believed his lawyer wasn't helping him properly. The case started when a burglary went badly, resulting in one person being killed and another being hurt. After his guilty pleas were accepted in court, Paz tried to withdraw them, but the judge said no. The judge continued to give him time to get a new lawyer but did not allow him to take back his pleas. Paz argued five main points in his appeal. He claimed that the judge helped too much during his plea negotiations, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly or intelligently, that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during important parts of the trial, and that his lawyer did not provide effective help. He also claimed that all these issues together made it unfair for him. The court reviewed everything and determined that the main issue was that Paz did not receive the help of a lawyer when trying to withdraw his guilty pleas. Both Paz and the State agreed that he should have had a lawyer to assist him in this situation. The court recognized that without proper counsel, Paz's claim that his pleas were not voluntary could not be dismissed as harmless. As a result, the court decided to vacate the previous decision and send the case back to the District Court so they could properly address Paz's request to withdraw his pleas.

F-2014-310

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 29, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.

RE 2014-0706

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.

F-2013-1199

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1199, Gene Douglas Graham appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Douglas Graham was found guilty by a jury for lewd molestation, which is against the law. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison. However, the judge took some time off his sentence and said he would only have to serve thirteen years and pay a fine. During the trial, Gene's arguments for appeal included that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did something wrong, that he couldn't present a defense, and that he didn’t get a fair trial. Specifically, he said the judge made a mistake by not letting him talk about an eviction notice he received, which he thought was important to show that he knew about the accusations before he made a statement to the police. The court decided that the judge had made a mistake by not allowing Gene to talk about the eviction notice and that it was important for his defense. They believed that not being able to mention it could have affected the jury's decision. Even though the State had a strong case, the jury was still confused because they found him not guilty on two other counts related to the same victim. The judge also mentioned that talking about Gene's right to stay silent when the police questioned him was wrong and should not have happened. Gene’s lawyer didn’t object to this at the trial, so it complicated the case. However, since they found other problems, they reversed the conviction and decided he needed a new trial. In the end, the court agreed that Gene had not been treated fairly during his trial, leading them to reverse the decision and start over. This means they felt important evidence was wrongfully kept out and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.

F-2013-974

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 18, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.

C-2014-254

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 13, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

F-2013-608

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 16, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.

F-2012-1029

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1029, Dustin Kyle Martin appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and Accessory to Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Martin's conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder but reversed the conviction for Accessory to Second Degree Murder, with instructions to dismiss that count. One judge dissented regarding the classification of being a principal and an accessory to the same crime. Martin was found guilty of both murder and being an accessory, which raised questions about whether one person can be convicted of both for the same crime. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, a person involved in a crime can be considered either a principal or an accessory, but cannot be both for the same offense. The trial court made an error by allowing the accessory charge to remain when Martin was already convicted of murder. During the trial, Martin's lawyers pointed out that he was convicted as a principal for the murder, so being convicted as an accessory to the same murder didn't make sense legally. The prosecution agreed that this was an error. Thus, the court decided to reverse the accessory conviction but kept the murder conviction intact. Martin also argued that there were many other problems during the trial, including mistakes in the jury instructions and the admission of prejudicial evidence, but the court found that these issues either did not affect the verdict or were harmless errors. The judges considered everything and concluded that the conviction for felony murder was supported by enough evidence, while the evidence wasn’t sufficient to support him being an accessory. In summary, the final decision of the court affirmed the murder conviction, while the accessory conviction was dismissed.

C-2013-1030

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1030, the petitioner appealed his conviction for grand larceny, false declaration of ownership in pawn, and bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for certiorari. One judge dissented. Kevin Anthony Eifert pleaded guilty to several charges in the District Court of Ottawa County. These included two counts of grand larceny, one count of false declaration of ownership in pawn, and one count of bail jumping. The court placed him in Drug Court but later removed him from that program. Following this, he was sentenced to serve prison time and pay fines. After his sentencing, Eifert tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the court did not have proper records to support the pleas, that he was not competent to enter them, and that some of the fines were too high according to the law. He also claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyers during his hearings. The court looked at his claims and decided that he had not made a proper challenge to some of his arguments when he initially tried to withdraw his pleas. Because of this, some of his complaints were not reviewed. While reviewing the case, the court found that one of the fines imposed was indeed higher than what the law allowed. They modified that fine to the correct amount. In the end, the court denied Eifert's request to change his sentence but changed one fine to align with the legal limits. Most of the judgments from the Ottawa County District Court were confirmed. Overall, while Eifert's appeal was mostly unsuccessful, one part of his sentence was modified due to an error, showing that the court takes care to ensure fairness in sentencing.

S-2013-696

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.

F-2012-703

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-703, Heather Ann Jones appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder, Robbery Committed by Two or More Persons, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Robbery but otherwise affirmed the Judgment and Sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Heather Ann Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in Sequoyah County. The jury sentenced her to fifteen years for Second Degree Murder, five years for Robbery, a fine for Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and one year in jail for Child Neglect, with all sentences running at the same time. Jones raised several issues on appeal. First, she questioned whether there was enough evidence to support her convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decisions, as it showed that Jones knew her accomplices intended to commit robbery. Even though initially the victim let them in, it was shown that they used deception to gain entry, which made their actions unlawful. Second, Jones argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow testimony about her behavior during a TV interview after her daughter was shot. The court found that while the video of the interview was inadmissible, the investigator’s testimony about her demeanor did not count as hearsay and did not unfairly affect the trial. Jones also claimed that statements made by a witness to the police were wrongly admitted, claiming it deprived her of a fair trial. Despite the admission being deemed an error, the court ruled that since the witness testified in court about the same things, the error did not impact the outcome significantly. Jones's objection to some character evidence used against her related to her behavior following her daughter’s shooting was dismissed, as the court believed it directly supported the charge of Child Neglect. She also argued that being convicted for both Robbery and Second Degree Murder was unfairly punishing her twice for the same act. The court agreed, finding that the acts were part of the same crime, so they reversed her conviction for Robbery. In terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jones claimed her lawyer should have objected to several pieces of evidence, including the TV interview, police statements, and character evidence. The court ruled that her lawyer's performance did not prejudicially affect the outcome because the decisions were matters of which objections would not have made a difference. Finally, Jones asked for a review of all issues together, hoping that their combined impact on her trial would show that she did not receive a fair trial. However, the court found the errors were not enough to change the outcome. Overall, the court reversed Jones's conviction for Robbery but affirmed the rest of her convictions and sentences.

RE-2013-555

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-555, Waylon Dean Snyder appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana within 1,000 Feet from a Park or School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of Snyder from the Drug Court Program and the corresponding order of revocation of his sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Snyder entered a guilty plea on March 11, 2009, and was sentenced to five years in prison, with a condition that most of the sentence would be suspended if he followed specific probation rules. Unfortunately, he did not comply with these rules, leading to a motion filed by the State to revoke his sentence. The court allowed him to enter a Drug Court Program instead of serving time in prison, with the understanding that failing this program would lead to starting his prison sentence. Snyder admitted to struggling with some of the conditions in the Drug Court program but attended regularly and participated in court activities. Despite some positive attendance, problems arose when he allegedly violated more conditions, which led to a motion to terminate him from Drug Court. When the State sought to terminate Snyder's participation in Drug Court, Snyder raised the argument that he had not received written notice detailing the specific violations being used against him for this termination. This lack of notice was crucial because, according to the law, Snyder was entitled to know the reasons behind the State's actions. The court reviewed the earlier actions and concluded that the State did not follow the correct legal process. Specifically, they didn’t provide the necessary updated notice about his violations at this latest hearing. As a result, Snyder's termination from Drug Court was improper. Consequently, the court reversed the decision to terminate Snyder from the program, which also meant he could not be forced to serve the rest of his five-year prison sentence since that order was linked to the termination. The court instructed to dismiss the case since his time under the suspended sentence had legally expired. In conclusion, Snyder's appeal was successful, leading to the reversal of the earlier decisions and allowing him to avoid further penalties stemming from the Drug Court program.

RE-2013-250

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.

F-2013-36

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.

F-2012-951

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-951, Darrell Williams appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Darrell Williams was found guilty by a jury in Payne County of multiple counts, including Sexual Battery and two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. Although the jury had acquitted him of two other charges, he was sentenced to one year in jail for each conviction, with the sentences to run at the same time. Williams felt that his trial was unfair and raised several reasons, or propositions, for his appeal. Williams argued that the jury was unfairly influenced by outside information during their discussions, which he believed violated his right to a fair trial. He indicated that some jurors visited the scene of the crime without permission and discussed what they saw during their deliberations. The court agreed with his concern that such behavior could affect the jury's decision-making process. During the appeal, the court conducted an investigation to see if the jurors did indeed visit the crime scene and if they talked about it while deciding the case. Testimony revealed that several jurors had made those unauthorized visits and shared their observations. Since the details about the crime's location and lighting were crucial to whether the identification of Williams was accurate, the court concluded that exposure to such outside information during deliberations could have impacted the verdict. Additionally, Williams complained that a bailiff might have made comments about needing a unanimous verdict, which could have pressured the jurors. The trial court looked into this matter as well, but they ultimately found that it was not clear if such comments were made and whether they had any effect on the jurors' decisions. The court found serious enough mistakes in the trial process and decided that Williams did not receive a fair trial. This led them to reverse the earlier judgments against him and send the case back to the lower court for a possible new trial. In summary, the court's main reasons for reversing the convictions were the unauthorized jury visits to the crime scene and the potential influence of the bailiff's comments on the jury's verdict.

F-2011-962

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 27, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-962, Jonas Alan Thornton appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Thornton's conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to concerns over the impartiality of the trial judge. One judge dissented. Thornton was convicted after a non-jury trial where the judge was someone he had previously consulted while looking for legal advice regarding the case against him. The incident occurred in January 2010 when Thornton allegedly fired a handgun into a house. After being arrested, he spoke with the judge, who was not in his judge role at that time. Later, the judge was elected and presided over Thornton’s trial. During the appeal, Thornton claimed that the judge should have recused himself because of their prior interaction, which could influence how the judge viewed the case. The court found that the judge failed to follow rules requiring him to step aside, which led to a decision that Thornton did not receive a fair trial. The court stated that even though Thornton did not directly ask for the judge to disqualify himself at the time, this did not eliminate the obligation for the judge to recognize a conflict of interest. The relationship between Thornton and the judge meant that the fairness of the trial could be doubted. As a result, the court ruled that Thornton's conviction needed to be reversed, and he would get a new trial. This decision effectively set aside the earlier trial's results and meant that any further claims Thornton made concerning his representation or other trial aspects were not addressed since the focus was on the impartiality of the judge.