Due Process Archives - Page 7 of 14

F-2012-559

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.

RE-2013-279

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-279, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the revocation hearing within the required twenty days after the appellant entered his plea. The decision was made without needing to address the other arguments raised by the appellant. One judge dissented.

M-2012-416

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2014
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

F-2013-327

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

In OCCA case No. F-2013-327, Claude M. Byrd, III appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with a firearm, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for kidnapping in Count 9 while affirming all other judgments and sentences. One judge dissented. In this case, Byrd was found guilty in a trial without a jury. He had several charges against him, which included conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and kidnapping. The court sentenced him to serve five years for conspiracy, fifteen years for robbery (with part of that suspended), and ten years for each kidnapping charge, all to be served at the same time. Byrd argued that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he committed robbery against two people and that he was unjustly punished for multiple kidnapping charges. He claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that some evidence used in his trial should not have been allowed. When the court looked at the evidence, they decided that Byrd was involved in the crimes even if he wasn't the one who took the items. His actions during the robbery could hold him responsible for the other crimes that happened afterward, like kidnapping people in the apartment. Regarding his claims of double punishment, the court found that Byrd's actions involved separate victims and crimes that did not violate the law against multiple punishments. However, they agreed that one of his kidnapping charges was too closely related to a robbery charge for Gonzalez, leading to the reversal of that specific conviction. The court concluded Byrd's lawyer did not fail in a significant way that would change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the trial judge had not made mistakes in allowing certain evidence or in sentencing him. In the end, Byrd lost his appeal for most charges, but the court reversed the kidnapping conviction for one of the victims.

C-2012-276

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 1, 2013
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-276, Bobby Ray Laney appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The court determined that Laney should be allowed to withdraw his Alford plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his competency to enter the plea. One judge dissented.

F-2011-1059

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 25, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1059, Cristopher Lyn Kibbe appealed his conviction for various crimes, including Attempted Second Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, Driving with a Revoked License, and Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the second and third counts, but modify the sentence on the attempted burglary to ten years. One judge dissented. Kibbe was found guilty by a jury and received a twenty-year sentence for each of the first two counts, while a fine of $100 was imposed for driving with a revoked license. His trial raised several issues related to judicial conduct and evidence. First, Kibbe argued that his trial was shaped unfairly by improper comments or testimonies from the prosecution. He claimed that a police officer made prejudicial remarks. However, the court found that the trial judge acted appropriately by not ordering a mistrial, as the errors cited were not fundamentally harmful to the fairness of the trial. Second, Kibbe contended that the evidence presented was not enough to support the jury's decision. The court determined that the testimony from his accomplice was properly corroborated and sufficient to justify the jury's verdicts. Kibbe also claimed that he was denied his right to present a full defense. Parts of his statements to police were not allowed into evidence. However, the court noted that many of Kibbe's exculpatory statements were presented before the jury, so it was unclear if additional statements would have made a difference. The appeal included complaints about evidence used during the sentencing phase. Kibbe's prior convictions were mentioned, and he argued that they should not have been because they were from similar transactions. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow those convictions as proper evidence for sentencing enhancement. Kibbe's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were largely dismissed as well. Although he pointed out several alleged wrongdoings by the prosecutor, the court found that the arguments did not amount to significant error. Ultimately, the court modified Kibbe's sentence on one of the counts due to a clear legal error regarding the length of the sentence. The court reduced this sentence from twenty years to ten years, which adhered to statutory guidelines. The court did not find that the cumulative errors impacted Kibbe’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, most of his convictions and sentences were upheld. The decision was to confirm the judgment on Counts 2 and 3, and modify the sentence on Count 1.

F-2012-622

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-622, Dewayne Edward Kemp appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Felony Murder but vacated the conviction for First Degree Burglary due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented. Kemp and two accomplices attempted to burglarize a home when the homeowner shot one of the accomplices fatally and injured Kemp. During his time in jail, Kemp made incriminating statements on recorded phone calls. Kemp's appeal included several arguments. He claimed that the state wrongly used hypothetical questions during jury selection, which he said made it difficult to have a fair trial. However, the court found these questions helpful for understanding the law and ruled against him. He also argued that he should have been allowed to present a statement made by a co-defendant, claiming that he was the one who planned the burglary. But since Kemp could not show that this statement would prove his innocence, the court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it. Kemp raised concerns about the prosecutor's choice to strike some jurors, suggesting it was based on gender. The court reviewed the reasons given by the prosecutor for these strikes and concluded that they were valid, thus rejecting Kemp's argument. Kemp pointed out that being convicted of both felony murder and burglary for the same incident was unfair and violated his rights against double jeopardy. The court agreed with this claim and voided the burglary conviction, stating that the two charges were too closely related. In summary, the court maintained Kemp's felony murder conviction but removed the burglary charge as it conflicted with double jeopardy rules.

F-2012-226

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-226, Johnny Sanders O'Neal, IV appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary, Endangering Others While Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, and Driving While License Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm O'Neal's convictions but modified his sentences, reducing them from 20 years to 15 years for Count 1 (Burglary) and from 25 years to 20 years for Count 2 (Endangering Others), both to be served at the same time. One judge dissented.

F-2012-721

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 1, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-721, Deshaunte Devon Coulter appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Coulter's conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, directing a new determination of the victim’s loss. One judge dissented. Coulter was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison, along with an order to pay $2,300 in restitution. He raised several issues on appeal, including claims of unfair trial due to the admission of other crimes evidence, DNA evidence issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentencing. The court looked closely at each of Coulter’s arguments. For the first claim about other crimes evidence, the court found there was no actual error because the officers’ testimonies did not specifically reference other crimes involving Coulter. Since Coulter did not challenge this during the trial, he could only appeal on the grounds of plain error, which the court ruled did not occur. In the second argument about DNA evidence, the court noted that Coulter had not shown that the State had erred. The evidence was timely provided, and the court did not find a Brady violation regarding the lack of lab notes since Coulter did not request them in time. For the third claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that there was no actual error. The prosecutor’s comments during the trial were not improper, and thus did not violate Coulter's rights. In the fourth argument, regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court concluded that the sentence fell within the legal limit and was not shockingly inappropriate under the circumstances. In the fifth claim, which concerned the assessment of restitution, the court found that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. The evidence presented at the sentencing didn’t adequately prove the victim's financial losses, so the restitution order was vacated. Finally, Coulter claimed that the cumulative effect of all errors deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found that wasn't the case. The decision affirmed Coulter's conviction and sentence while remanding the restitution matter for proper evaluation.

F-2011-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.

F-2011-473

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.

RE-2011-562

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 24, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.

S-2012-244

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 8, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.

F 2011-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2011-1043, Ricky Carlos Colbert appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but ordered the case to be sent back to correct the judgment and sentence to show the correct crime of assault and battery on a police officer. One judge dissented. Colbert was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after he was identified during a video of the crime. He raised several arguments for his appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in jury instructions, introduction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccuracies in his sentence, and cumulative errors. The court carefully examined each argument. 1. For the first point, the court decided that Colbert's lawyer did not provide ineffective assistance. They felt his strategy in the case was acceptable, even if it didn't work out as planned. The lawyer's decision to dispute Colbert's identity rather than claiming he committed a lesser crime was valid, according to the court. 2. For the second point about not instructing the jury on a lesser offense, the court found that Colbert did not ask for this instruction, so they only looked for obvious errors (plain error). They concluded there was no plain error. 3. Regarding evidence, the court said the video of the crime was properly introduced, as there were no objections during the trial. 4. On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no serious wrongdoing from the prosecutors. 5. The fifth point involved many mistakes in the judgment, which required a remand to correct records to indicate the correct conviction. 6. Lastly, the court found there were no individual errors that required relief, so cumulative error claims were not valid. Overall, the court concluded to send the case back for corrections but allowed the original convictions to stand. Colbert’s request for a hearing about his lawyer’s effectiveness was also denied.

F-2010-1237

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

F-2011-563

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-563, Ronnie Lee Martin appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs After Former Conviction of Three Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. One judge dissented. Ronnie Lee Martin was found guilty after a bench trial, meaning there was no jury, and received a life sentence without the chance for parole. Martin's case stemmed from a traffic stop where drugs were discovered in his possession. The police officer who stopped the car noticed Martin acting suspiciously and later found a substantial amount of crack cocaine during a search of Martin's belongings. Initially, Martin was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, which could have resulted in a sentence of four years to life. However, a plea deal of ten years was offered but not accepted due to Martin's attorney advising against it. Later, after more evidence was presented, Martin was charged with the more serious crime of trafficking, which led to a mandatory life sentence without parole. Martin claimed his attorney failed to provide effective counsel, particularly in advising him about the plea deal. The court found his attorney's performance to be deficient, as he did not read important documents that would have clarified the seriousness of Martin’s situation. Additionally, the attorney failed to prepare properly for both pretrial motions and the trial itself. The court looked at the history of Martin's defense lawyer and noted that this attorney had been previously disciplined for ineffective practices, which raised concerns about Martin's representation throughout the trial. The judge stated that Martin was denied a fair trial, and as a result, the court had no choice but to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. In summary, the court determined that due to many errors made by Martin's lawyer, he did not receive sufficient legal representation, and therefore, his convictions could not stand. Martin’s journey through the legal system was marked by these failings, which ultimately led to the court's decision to give him another chance to defend himself properly.

C-2012-714

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-714, the petitioner appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for larceny but to reverse and remand the conviction for resisting an officer. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Darrell Odell Golden was charged with stealing merchandise from a department store and for resisting arrest after being approached by law enforcement. Golden stole items valued over $1,000, and when police tried to arrest him, he ran away. Golden pled guilty to both charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was confused about his possible sentence and that he did not understand the charges properly. The court found that while Golden’s plea for larceny was valid, his plea for resisting an officer lacked evidence of the required force or violence, which is necessary to support that charge. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea for that particular count but upheld his conviction for larceny. Ultimately, the decision meant that Golden will keep his larceny conviction and its associated penalties, but the charge of resisting an officer was overturned, allowing for further legal proceedings on that matter.

F-2010-203

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.

F-2010-651

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 13, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-651, Frank Leroy Gibson appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gibson's convictions but modified his sentence on Count I to 25 years of imprisonment instead of Life. One judge dissented regarding the sentencing modification. Gibson was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing drug paraphernalia after a police search of his home. The jury considered various pieces of evidence, including burned pseudoephedrine blister packs and a coffee grinder with traces of the drug. Gibson argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he manufactured methamphetamine, but the court disagreed, stating sufficient circumstantial evidence pointed to his involvement. Gibson also raised concerns about how the jury was instructed regarding a question they had during sentencing discussions. He claimed the response given by the judge was improper. However, the court found that the response did not negatively affect his rights. Another point of appeal involved how the State proved Gibson’s prior felony convictions. Gibson argued that the use of certain documents to establish his past convictions was wrong. The court noted he did not object to this during the trial, so it upheld the use of the documents. Gibson also claimed that his post-arrest silence was mentioned inappropriately during the trial, which could lead to unfair treatment. The court assessed this point and found that the reference did not affect the fairness of the trial overall. Gibson argued that the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial, making inflammatory comments and expressing personal opinions. The court examined these claims and concluded that while some comments by the prosecutor were improper, they did not affect the outcome of the trial. There was also a concern about the trial judge informing the jury that Gibson's attorney was facing criminal charges. The court acknowledged the trial court's comments were poorly chosen but ultimately decided that they did not cause significant harm to Gibson’s case. The court determined that while Gibson's sentence was initially excessive due to the previous errors and comments related to the trial, the evidence of his guilt was strong, and thus reduced his sentence on the methamphetamine charge to 25 years in prison. The possession charge remained unchanged and the sentences were to run concurrently. In conclusion, while Gibson’s convictions were upheld, the court modified his sentence for fairness considering the cumulative effects of the prosecutor's statements and the judge's comments.

J-2011-394

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2011
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2011-394, R.J.T. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's certification of R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution. One judge dissented. R.J.T., who turned fifteen just days before the alleged offenses, was charged in Cleveland County District Court with several counts of arson. The law allows for individuals like R.J.T. to be considered youthful offenders, meaning they could be treated differently than adults in the legal system. The Youthful Offender Act lets a young person ask to be moved to the juvenile justice system either before or during a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing on May 4, 2011, R.J.T.'s lawyer had not filed a formal request to have R.J.T. tried as a juvenile. Instead, they agreed that R.J.T. would plead guilty to being a youthful offender, which would lead to a delay in sentencing while he was on probation. However, the judge expressed concern about this agreement, questioning whether he could move R.J.T. to the juvenile system on his own if they waived the preliminary hearing. After some discussion, R.J.T. waived the preliminary hearing. The judge then proceeded to consider if R.J.T. should be certified to the juvenile system, looking into evidence including a psychological report. The judge found that R.J.T. had strong family support, no prior criminal history, and had been doing well in school. It was revealed that he had ADHD and had been removed from medication around the time of the offenses. The judge also heard that R.J.T. was shy and struggled socially but had not caused any injuries in the incidents he was accused of. At the end of the hearing, the judge decided to certify R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution after considering the guidelines established by law. This decision meant that R.J.T. would be treated more like a child than an adult in the legal system. The state then appealed this decision, believing that the judge had made mistakes. On appeal, the state argued two main points. First, they said the judge shouldn't have rejected the waiver of the preliminary hearing since it would mean R.J.T. wouldn’t be able to take the plea deal. Second, they claimed that the judge shouldn’t have certified R.J.T. as a juvenile because he considered factors not allowed by law. However, the court found that the judge acted within his rights to consider the certification issue and that he did so correctly, based on the evidence. The court noted that there was enough information to support the judge's decision. They stated that the goal of the youthful offender system is to ensure public safety while giving young people a chance for rehabilitation. The court's decision reaffirmed that R.J.T. would continue in the juvenile system, allowing for different treatment options than if he were handled as an adult. The decision was approved by most judges, but one judge disagreed, arguing that the judge had overstepped by forming conclusions without sufficient evidence being presented. In conclusion, the May 4, 2011, order certifying R.J.T. to the juvenile system was upheld by the court, which believed that this path offered the best chance for R.J.T.'s rehabilitation and the safety of the community.

J 2011-0475

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 25, 2011
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2011-0475, the appellant appealed his conviction for rape and lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court denying the appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and remanded the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented.

F-2010-2

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 21, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-2, Clinton Riley Potts appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. No one dissented. Clinton Riley Potts was found guilty by a jury of murdering Gregory Clark. This happened after Potts learned that Clark was dating his girlfriend. The court sentenced Potts to life in prison without the chance for parole. Potts believed he did not have a fair trial. He thought that the prosecutor did not tell his lawyer important information about a witness. This information could have helped show that the witness was not telling the truth and also could have helped Potts’s case. He also argued that his own lawyer did not do enough to prepare for the trial, did not look into the case properly, and did not bring in important witnesses. After Potts appealed, an evidentiary hearing was held. During this hearing, it was shown that Potts’s lawyer did not investigate the case as well as he should have. They found that the prosecutor had information about a key witness who had received special treatment for testifying at Potts's trial, but they did not share this information with Potts's lawyer. The judge who looked at the evidence agreed that Potts did not receive a fair trial. This finding was important because the judge had also been the one who oversaw Potts's original trial, making him well aware of how the mistakes may have affected the trial's outcome. The court decided that Potts's arguments about unfairness were valid. Since this was the case, they reversed the initial verdict and said that Potts should have a new trial. The decision meant that the earlier trial was not valid anymore, and the court ordered that Potts would get another chance to present his case in a new trial.

RE-2010-293

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 22, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.