Evidentiary Hearing Archives - Page 7 of 9

RE-2010-304

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-304, Jason Dean Vansickle appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order related to his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jason was found guilty of two counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. The judge initially decided to wait five years before making a final decision about Jason's punishment, allowing him to follow some rules during that time. But later, the state said Jason broke those rules by using drugs and not paying fees. After a hearing, the judge decided that Jason did break the rules and ordered that he serve a year in jail. The judge added that if Jason could finish rehab during that year, he could avoid additional punishment. Jason disagreed with the judge's decision, especially the part about needing to serve a calendar year in jail, believing it meant he had to stay there every day without earning any time off. The court agreed with Jason that the judge didn't have the authority to set his punishment this way. It clarified that any time taken off his punishment should be based on the original sentence without this added calendar requirement. The court decided that the year part of the sentence, as described by the judge, should be changed. They kept the other parts of the judge's decision the same but removed the requirement for serving a calendar year in jail. Overall, the case highlighted that judges must follow specific rules when deciding on punishments and that adding extra conditions could go beyond what they are allowed to do.

C-2008-1155

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.

C-2009-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.

C-2009-410

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-410, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case revolved around the petitioner who had pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine. He had a plea deal where he was supposed to receive a five-year sentence, but ultimately, he was given a ten-year sentence instead. After his sentencing, the petitioner believed that the judge did not follow the plea agreement correctly and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion, which the petitioner argued was unfair. He raised several concerns, including that there was no clear reason for his guilty plea, that he might not have been competent to enter the plea, and that he didn’t receive proper help from his lawyer. He also claimed the sentence and other penalties were too harsh. After reviewing everything, the OCCA found that there should have been a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea. They ordered the trial court to have a hearing where the petitioner could present his case and have a lawyer help him. The hearing needed to happen within 45 days, and if the motion was denied, the court was to send the details to the OCCA, where the petitioner could appeal if he wished. In summary, the court decided that the petitioner deserved another chance to explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea, and a proper hearing should take place to address those issues.

RE-2008-880

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.

C-2009-17

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 27, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-17, Olindia Toann Vaughn appealed her conviction for Attempted Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her request to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Olindia Toann Vaughn pleaded guilty to attempting to rob someone with a weapon in the District Court of Tulsa County. She had an agreement with the court and was given a 15-year prison sentence that would run at the same time as another sentence she had. Later, Vaughn wanted to take back her guilty plea and asked the court to let her do it, but her request was denied after a hearing. Vaughn then filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is a request for the court to review her case. She also asked to add more information to her appeal and wanted a hearing to talk about her claims regarding the assistance of her lawyer when she tried to withdraw her plea. The court agreed to look at her additional information and set a hearing to explore specific questions about whether her lawyer gave her inadequate help. During the hearing, it was established that the lawyers who helped Vaughn when she wanted to withdraw her plea did not do a good job. They did not visit her beforehand to discuss her claims, did not investigate her confusion and mental health issues, and did not question her about how her health could affect her plea. As a result of these findings, the trial court decided that Vaughn had not received the proper assistance she needed from her lawyer during the plea withdrawal hearing. After reviewing the information, the court granted Vaughn's petition and allowed her to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County for her to formally withdraw her plea and for further proceedings. The court recognized that it is important for everyone to have help from a competent lawyer, especially when they want to change their plea.

F-2008-289

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 3, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-289, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, marijuana, and paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court Program, agreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in the decision, and reinstated the appellant to the Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had entered a Drug Court Program after pleading guilty to drug charges. Initially, the appellant struggled with substance abuse but made significant progress over the years, living a more stable life and regaining custody of her children. However, the situation changed when she was arrested for driving under the influence after having two drinks on a night out. At a court hearing, her termination from the Drug Court Program was discussed. Some witnesses testified that the appellant's actions should not classify as a relapse in her recovery process since she had remained sober for over 400 days before the incident. They argued that even though she made a poor choice by drinking and driving, it did not warrant her removal from the program, especially since she showed great progress in her life. However, the court disagreed with the trial judge's decision to terminate the appellant. The appellate court found that the termination was not justified since the overall evidence suggested that the appellant could successfully complete the Drug Court Program despite the DUI incident. The court emphasized the importance of allowing participants ample time to change their behaviors and succeed in treatment. As a result, the appellate court reversed the termination order and instructed the lower court to reinstate the appellant in the Drug Court Program, allowing her to continue working toward completing her treatment plan.

RE-2008-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-599, Betty Sue Black appealed her conviction for obtaining cash by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Betty Sue Black was sentenced to ten years in prison for her crime, but she only had to serve one year in jail if she followed the rules of her probation. She was also required to pay a fine and make restitution, which means she had to pay back money she owed. After being released from jail, her first payment was due in January 2008. However, in January, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke her probation, claiming she had failed to make her restitution payment. A hearing was held, where it was found that she was unable to pay because of her financial situation. She had disabilities that affected her ability to get a job, and she lived with her sick daughter. There was no proof that she could pay the $200 she owed at that time. The court found that the only issue was her failure to pay the restitution, and they agreed that this was not a good reason for revoking her probation since she couldn't pay. They ruled that it was not fair to revoke her for something she could not control. The appellate court decided to reverse the revocation order and directed that the motion to revoke her probation be dismissed because they felt that the trial court had made a mistake in the decision. The dissenting judge believed that the trial court had not made an error and felt that the judge should be trusted to make these decisions based on what he heard and saw during the hearings.

C-2007-821

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 16, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.

RE-2007-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-850, Barbara Denise Sanders appealed her conviction for grand larceny and false declaration of ownership, as well as three counts of bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for the grand larceny charge, but reversed the revocation of her bail jumping sentences, which means those were dismissed. One judge dissented. Barbara Sanders had pleaded guilty to her charges and received several sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she followed certain rules. However, she did not follow these rules, which included not paying fees, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving Oklahoma without permission. Because of these issues, the state tried to revoke her suspended sentences. At a hearing, Barbara admitted to the problems but argued the state had not acted quickly enough to bring her back to court for these issues. The judge did not agree with her and decided to revoke her sentences. On appeal, Barbara claimed that the state had not been diligent in prosecuting her case, and she also pointed out mistakes in the court's records. The court agreed that certain parts of her previous sentences had not been revoked properly and decided that the state had acted too late in one of her cases, which resulted in those charges being dismissed. In the end, the court kept the revocation for the grand larceny charge but said the revocation for the bail jumping charges was invalid because the state did not follow the rules in time.

F-2007-636

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.

C-2007-743

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence from the District Court in Case No. CF-2004-31 and remand it back for further proceedings, specifically to determine the unserved portion of Long's sentence. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in CF-2006-90, which was for Burglary in the Second Degree. The court clarified that a prior felony conviction enhanced Long's sentence for the burglary conviction. One member of the court dissented.

C-2007-554

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-554, Aaron Perry Hampton appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal and affirmed most aspects of the lower court's decision, but also instructed the lower court to correct some clerical errors. One judge dissenting. Hampton had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including burglary and assault, and was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison. He later tried to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered them and that the sentences were too harsh. The court found that he had been mentally competent and was aware of his actions when he pleaded guilty. They determined the sentences were appropriate for the crimes he committed. However, they agreed that there were mistakes in the official paperwork regarding the sentences and case numbers, so they sent the case back to the lower court to fix those errors while keeping the original sentences in place.

F-2006-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 19, 2007
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.

F-2005-640

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 17, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.

C-2005-1

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 28, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.

C-2006-1079

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-06-1079, Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided that Harris was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of his case, which was the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that since Harris' attorney was not present at the hearing, he did not have proper legal representation. This decision led to a determination that Harris should be given another chance to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, this time with independent legal counsel. One judge dissented.

F-2005-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1146, Pamela Dee Colley appealed her conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and several other drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, but reversed her conviction for count 3, possession of marijuana. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of count 3. Pamela Colley was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime related to illegal drugs after a traffic stop conducted by a police officer. The case began when the officer noticed her car making a traffic violation early in the morning. When he pulled her over, he found out that Colley did not have a driver's license and provided some confusing information. The police officer thought that drug dealers were operating in the area, so he called for a K9 unit to further check for drugs. When the dog alerted, the police searched her car and found illegal drugs, scales, and items used for drug use in her purse. Colley was very upset and later gave permission for police to search her, leading to more illegal items being discovered on her. Colley argued in court that her sentence of life without parole was unfair and that she didn’t know about the drugs. She claimed that her attorney didn’t defend her well and that the way the trial was handled had problems. However, the court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction. They also decided the police did everything by the book during the traffic stop. While the court agreed that one of her charges resulted in a double punishment, it found that her other convictions were valid given the serious nature of the drug trafficking involved. Thus, she will remain convicted on those charges, which involved large amounts of methamphetamine, while they reversed the possession of marijuana charge due to it being a part of the same incident.

F-2005-110

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

PC 2006-0638

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2007
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

C-2006-571

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2007
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.

F-2004-427

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-427, Emily Michelle Dowdy appealed her conviction for First-Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented from the decision to modify the sentence. Emily was charged after a fatal car accident that resulted in the death of another driver, Ryan Brewer. Emily's blood test later showed a high blood alcohol concentration, indicating she was driving under the influence. In her defense, she claimed she was involuntarily intoxicated, suggesting that she may have been given a drug without her knowledge, such as GHB or rohypnol, often associated with date-rape cases. Emily argued that she could not remember what happened after she took a friend to her car at a bar. The trial included a significant amount of expert testimony regarding the effects of GHB, but the state argued that Emily was likely just drunk from alcohol. Various witnesses testified about her drinking at the bar that night and her generally good driving record. On appeal, Emily raised several arguments regarding the fairness of her trial, alleging ineffective assistance of her counsel, improper admission of certain evidence regarding her character, and comments made by the prosecutor. The court reviewed testimony regarding whether Emily had been properly advised about her rights during police questioning and whether any misconduct had affected the jurors' views. After thorough review, the court concluded that the trial was fair overall, although it noted that one witness's hearsay testimony, which was not properly admissible, could have potentially influenced the jury's view of Emily. Ultimately, this led to a modification of her sentence, although the conviction itself remained intact. The dissenting judge felt that the original forty-year sentence was appropriate and did not believe that the limited hearsay testimony had a significant impact on the final outcome.

RE-2005-1195

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 4, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1195, #x appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base). In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of the suspended sentence. #n dissented. In this case, the appellant was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs back in 1997. He was given a ten-year sentence but was allowed to serve only five years after some of it was suspended. Over the years, he was on probation. However, in September 2005, the state claimed that he had violated his probation by doing something called domestic abuse and by not following a protective order. A hearing took place to investigate these claims. The judge decided that the appellant did break the rules by having some contact that could be considered domestic abuse, but it was a small violation. The contact happened when he was trying to see his baby son, which was allowed by a court order. It seemed that the meeting was short and not planned, and he ended it when it became clear that the other person wouldn't follow the rules. The court thought these special circumstances made the punishment too harsh. They decided to lessen the punishment and only took away one year from the suspended sentence instead of a larger amount. The appellant would still have to follow the rules of his probation after this one year was served. In summary, the court agreed that the appellant had a minor violation worth a one-year revocation, but otherwise, he would return to probation for the rest of his sentence.

C-2006-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.

S-2006-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2006
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.