Due Process

F-2006-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.

Continue ReadingF-2006-648

F-2006-469

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-469, Ricky Dale Hester appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, Conspiracy, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court affirmed his convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the kidnapping conviction. Hester was found guilty after a series of serious crimes. The events began when he, along with co-defendant Carl Myers, targeted Richard Hooks. They lured Hooks to a vacant house under false pretenses, where they planned to rob him. Hooks was beaten, stabbed multiple times, and then his body was moved to a garage that was set on fire. The jury sentenced Hester to life in prison without parole for the murder, and significant prison terms for the other counts. During the trial, various pieces of evidence were presented, including confessions made by Hester. However, he raised concerns about certain jury instructions and the admission of evidence. Hester argued that a specific instruction given to the jury about co-conspirator liability was incorrect, as it could lead the jury to presume guilt simply because he was part of a conspiracy. The court found that the jury was properly instructed on the law, and that the evidence presented showed Hester's active involvement in the crimes. He also challenged the trial court’s failure to provide instructions regarding the need for corroboration of confessions and accomplice testimony. The court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Hester’s confessions and that any omission in instructions did not impact the trial's fairness. Hester claimed that the admission of statements made by his co-defendant during the conspiracy was improper and that his statements to his partner were protected by spousal privilege. The court disagreed, finding that the trial had properly handled those matters and that the evidence substantiating the crimes was strong. Despite Hester's arguments, the court determined that the evidence was enough to support the convictions for murder, arson, conspiracy, and robbery, finding he played a crucial role in the criminal acts committed. However, due to a lack of evidence showing an intent to extort while holding Hooks against his will, the kidnapping conviction was reversed. In the end, while Hester's more serious convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged flaws in the evidence related to the kidnapping charge, leading to that particular conviction being dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2006-469

F-2005-1285

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1285, Willard Dean Jackson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent proposal to a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with directions to enter a judgment of conviction for soliciting a minor for child pornography. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1285

F-2006-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-850, Jeffrey Airehart appealed his conviction for drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his termination from the Drug Court program and instructed that he be reinstated. One judge dissented. Jeffrey Airehart was removed from a Drug Court program due to several positive drug tests. The judge had previously sanctioned him for these tests by imposing short jail terms. Airehart claimed that terminating him was unfair because he had already faced penalties for the same violations. He argued that this violated laws meant to protect individuals from being punished multiple times for the same issue, known as double jeopardy. The court agreed with Airehart's first argument, stating that the Drug Court system is designed to help individuals recover by allowing for relapses and providing a structured way to deal with them rather than terminating their participation after violations. Since Airehart had already been punished, the court ruled that it was not right to terminate him again for those same actions. Regarding his second argument, Airehart said that he did not get proper notice of the grounds for his termination, which made it hard for him to prepare his defense. The court found that while the State could consider his overall performance in the program to decide on termination, the specific terminations were based on violations for which he had been already punished. Therefore, the additional reasons the State brought up were not the basis for his termination. Ultimately, the court ordered that Airehart be reinstated to the Drug Court program and that previous jail sentences related to his termination be canceled, emphasizing the importance of encouraging rehabilitation rather than simply punishing individuals who struggle with addiction.

Continue ReadingF-2006-850

M-2006-370

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-370, #Nicholson appealed his conviction for #Direct Contempt of Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm one count of contempt and reverse five counts. #One judge dissented. Jeremy Dion Nicholson was found in contempt of court during his co-defendant's trial. He received six citations, and each citation came with a six-month sentence in jail, which were to be served one after the other. Nicholson argued that being held in contempt violated his right to remain silent, as he was involved in another case that was still being appealed. He also said the judge acted improperly and that there was a mix of errors which caused him to not have a fair trial. The court explained that Nicholson had been granted immunity for his testimony, meaning his answers could not be used against him later. This immunity meant he was expected to testify and had lost his right to avoid incriminating himself in this situation. The court agreed that he would be held in contempt for refusing to testify, and canceled five of his six contempt convictions but kept one. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge made mistakes but noted that the judge's actions were aimed at making sure Nicholson was protected under the law. The judge didn't show any improper behavior in her conduct during the trial of the co-defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for one count of contempt but overturned the other five counts and instructed that those be dismissed. There was a disagreement among the judges, with one judge believing the judge had acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial figure, which could lead to problems in how justice was served.

Continue ReadingM-2006-370

F-2006-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-991, Causey appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Causey was found guilty after a jury trial and given a 15-year prison sentence. He claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. 1. He argued that the jury was not told he would have to serve 85% of his sentence. 2. He also said that the court let hearsay from the child victim be used against him without checking if it was trustworthy. 3. Causey felt he was not allowed to present his side of the story properly. 4. He criticized the decision to give instructions about flight, suggesting it was unfair. 5. He pointed out issues with witnesses who supported the victim’s truths, saying it affected the fairness of his trial. 6. He was concerned that the victim testified holding a doll, which he believed was inappropriate. 7. Causey said his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not try to stop the search of his home. 8. He claimed that all these mistakes combined made the trial unfair. The court agreed that the trial had serious errors, particularly with how hearsay was handled and the statements about the victim's truthfulness. These mistakes meant that Causey did not receive a fair trial. The court ordered that he should get a new trial and said that future juries should be informed about the 85% requirement of the sentence. They did not need to provide further solutions for other issues since the main decision was enough to overturn the case.

Continue ReadingF-2006-991

C-2006-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

Continue ReadingC-2006-649

F-2006-301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.

Continue ReadingF-2006-301

F-2005-911

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-911, Timothy Griffith appealed his conviction for two counts of Attempted First Degree Rape and eight counts of sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences except for one count of attempted first degree rape, which was reversed and dismissed. One judge dissented. Griffith was found guilty of two attempted rapes and eight counts of sexually abusing a child, and he was given a total of 61 years in prison. He argued that both his rights against double jeopardy and his right to a fair trial had been violated, among other claims. The court reviewed each of Griffith's arguments. For the first point, the court found there was enough evidence to support the charges and no violation of double jeopardy. For the second and third points, the court ruled that the prosecutor had the discretion to charge Griffith with attempted rape instead of just intent to commit rape, so the trial was fair. Regarding the case's fourth and fifth points, the court decided that the additional testimonies from adult witnesses and the child's prior statements were allowable and did not greatly harm Griffith's case. The sixth allegation about a medical opinion from a physician assistant was also found not to be a problem since it did not influence the jury's decision directly. On point seven, the court agreed that the judge made a mistake by not letting Griffith fully present his defense. This part was significant because it led to the reversal of one of the counts against him. Finally, the court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive despite the overall situation, and there were no errors that would justify further action. In summary, most of Griffith's arguments were not persuasive to the court, and while some parts of the conviction remained, one count was removed due to the identified error.

Continue ReadingF-2005-911

C 2005-608

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2005-608, Ricky Allen Rinker appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Rinker's request to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Ricky Allen Rinker made pleas of guilty and nolo contendere for several counts of crimes against children. He was sentenced to a total of over forty years in prison. After some time, Rinker wanted to take back his pleas, saying they were not made knowingly or voluntarily. He believed he was not properly informed about the possible sentences and his eligibility for parole. The court agreed that he had not been properly informed about important rules related to his sentence, particularly that he would need to serve 85% of his time before being eligible for parole. Since this was a serious issue, the court allowed him to withdraw his pleas and overturned his sentence. Some judges thought that Rinker should have to provide more proof that he did not understand the rules concerning his pleas. They believed he had not shown enough evidence that he should be allowed to take back his pleas simply because no official record of his plea was made. However, in the end, the majority ruled in favor of Rinker, allowing him a chance to re-do his plea with all the proper information.

Continue ReadingC 2005-608

F-2005-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.

Continue ReadingF-2005-649

C 2006-497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2006-497, Tommy Lee Williams appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Williams' sentence. One judge dissented. Tommy Williams pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, which is a serious crime involving harm to children. He was initially given a very long sentence of life in prison, but with 30 years of it suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that part if he followed certain rules while on probation. The court also said he would need to follow rules as a violent offender for his whole life. Williams didn't agree with the sentence. He thought it was way too harsh. He also mentioned that the judge might have taken unproven bad behavior into account when deciding the punishment. Williams' lawyers believed that the judge had made some mistakes, so they filed a motion asking the court to let him change his guilty plea. They pointed out four main issues they thought were problems with the judge's decisions. First, they argued that the length of the sentence was surprising and excessive. Second, they felt the judge didn't check if Tommy was mentally ready to go through with the plea. Third, they claimed it wasn’t fair for the judge to make Williams be on supervision for life, as that's a long time. Fourth, they said Tommy wasn't clearly told about the potential length of his sentence and a special rule that could mean he'd have to serve 85% of his time before getting out. The court looked through all the information presented in the case. They decided that Williams' sentence was too harsh when they compared it with similar cases. They agreed that some of the reasons the trial judge gave for his decision weren't valid. Child abuse is serious, but the punishment given to Williams felt wrong to the appeals court. About the lifetime supervision, the court believed that was also not right. They then concluded that they needed to change the sentence to make it fairer. In the end, the court lowered Williams' sentence to 20 years instead of life. They said he would still need to follow rules during his time in prison, but that the earlier sentence was just too much for the crime he committed. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure their decision was put into action.

Continue ReadingC 2006-497

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

F-2005-471

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-471, Desiray Jaibai Allen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Allen's sentence but upheld the conviction. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge dissented. Desiray Jaibai Allen was found guilty by a jury for distributing controlled substances and was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. During the appeal, Allen raised several arguments claiming errors during the trial. He felt that improper evidence and misconduct affected his right to a fair trial. The court reviewed all aspects of the case, including trial records and arguments. Although they found some issues with the evidence presented, they decided that these did not require a complete reversal of the conviction. However, they agreed with Allen on one point: certain irrelevant and improper documents should not have been shown to the jury. Because of this, the court reduced his sentences to 15 years for each count instead of 20. The judges discussed other claims made by Allen, such as prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay evidence, but determined that these did not seriously impact the fairness of the trial. The accumulation of errors didn't lead to a requirement for further action beyond reducing the sentences. Ultimately, while the judgment of conviction remained intact, the sentences were modified to less time in prison. Thus, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but adjusted how long Allen would need to serve for the charges.

Continue ReadingF-2005-471

F-2005-58

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-58, Alishia Faith Mackey appealed her conviction for permitting child abuse and failure to report child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction for permitting child abuse but vacated her conviction for failure to report child abuse. One judge dissented regarding the double punishment issue. Mackey was found guilty by a jury of allowing child abuse to happen and not reporting it. The jury said she should go to prison for twenty years for permitting the abuse and fined her $500 for failing to report it. Mackey argued that the trial had many mistakes, including that a child testified behind a screen without enough evidence to justify it, the jury wasn't properly instructed on possible defenses, and her lawyer didn't do a good job. She believed the sentences were too harsh and that all the errors added up to make her trial unfair. The court looked at each claim. It found that not allowing the child to confront Mackey face-to-face was a mistake, but it was not serious enough to change the outcome since there was a lot of other evidence against her. The court also said that there was no need to instruct the jury on a defense of duress because there was no proof that she was forced to allow the abuse. Additionally, they decided that while the jury didn't get instructions on another defense, it didn't matter because Mackey wasn't charged under that law. For the claims about not being allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses, the court said those decisions were fair and didn't break any rules. They determined that having both convictions didn’t go against laws against double punishment; however, since the two charges came from the same event, she should only receive one punishment. Overall, the court found that while some things in the trial were wrong, they did not change the fact that Mackey was guilty of permitting child abuse. They decided that the punishment for failing to report the abuse should be taken away since it was unfair to punish her twice for the same act. The final decision left her conviction for permitting child abuse in place but removed her conviction for failure to report. The judges had differing opinions on some points, particularly on whether both charges should stand, but the main ruling agreed that her punishment for the failure to report should not continue.

Continue ReadingF-2005-58

RE-2006-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-1308

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737

F-2005-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-874, Leroy Mitchell, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Leroy Mitchell, Jr. was found guilty of a serious crime after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but five of those years were suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that time unless he got into trouble again. Mitchell believed there were problems during his trial and decided to appeal. He had several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that some statements made during the trial were unfair because they were hearsay. Hearsay is when someone repeats what another person said rather than saying what they directly experienced. In Mitchell's case, he felt that the way the hearsay was used violated his rights, particularly his right to confront witnesses against him. Also, he claimed that some of the evidence presented in court was unreliable and that he did not have a fair chance to defend himself. He worried that the evidence related to other crimes might have influenced the judge unfairly. Mitchell also said that his lawyer did not perform well during the trial, which led to more problems. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Mitchell's rights were not properly protected during the trial. Specifically, they found that the court allowed too much hearsay without the necessary checks to ensure it was reliable. This made it hard to believe the outcome of the trial was fair. As a result, the court decided to reverse the original judgment and said that Mitchell deserves another trial where these issues can be addressed properly.

Continue ReadingF-2005-874

F-2004-1096

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1096, Deon Lamar Nelson appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery Upon An Officer of State Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Nelson's convictions but modified the sentence for Count I to three years of imprisonment. One judge dissented in part. Nelson was found guilty by a jury for hitting two court officers. He received a longer sentence for the first charge, where he hit one officer, due to the injuries caused. The main arguments he made in his appeal included issues with how the cases were joined together, whether a defense attorney counts as an officer of the court, the admission of certain evidence that he claimed was unfair, and concerns about his competency during the trial. The court held that it was fine to join the two cases together, and they ruled that a defense attorney is indeed considered an officer of the court. Regarding the evidence about the injuries from the assault, the court mentioned that some of it shouldn't have been included since it might have affected the fairness of his sentencing. Although they found error in admitting this evidence, they still believed the overall verdicts and the remaining parts of the trial were fair. Ultimately, the court decided that Nelson's sentence for the first count of assault was too severe due to the improper evidence, and they modified it to three years, while they affirmed the conviction and sentence for the second count. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed with reducing the sentence, stating the injuries were relevant for determining the punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1096

S-2006-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

Continue ReadingS-2006-117

F 2005-659

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-659, Sundeep Kishore appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution, sending it back to the district court for further determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2005-659

F 2005-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.

Continue ReadingF 2005-522

RE-2005-536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-536