Ex Post Facto Law Archives

S-2011-0467

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 1, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.

F-2008-1199

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 3, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1199, Cody Robert Grenemyer appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for two counts. One judge dissented. Grenemyer was found guilty of committing serious sexual crimes against his daughters, including rape and lewd molestation. The abuse happened over a period of time and was described by multiple victims. Despite Grenemyer's denial of the allegations, the testimony of his daughters was consistent and compelling enough for the jury to convict him. During the trial, Grenemyer wanted to introduce evidence that the younger victims had been molested by another man earlier. However, the trial court decided that this information wasn't relevant to the case at hand. The judge recognized that while the evidence could have some bearing, it also risked confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing the victims. Grenemyer argued that his sentences were too harsh, claiming that life imprisonment without parole was not appropriate under the law effective at the time of his offenses. However, this was found to be without merit as the law allowed for such sentences. The appeals court found an issue with how much past behavior information was shared during the trial, particularly focusing on the testimonies of older siblings who spoke of their own experiences of abuse. The amount of such information might have led the jury to concentrate more on past actions rather than the specific charges brought against Grenemyer. The judges agreed that while the evidence did not affect the jury's determination of guilt, it likely influenced the sentences they recommended. Thus, Grenemyer’s sentences for the first-degree rape charges were modified to ensure he would have the possibility for parole after serving a portion of his sentence. In conclusion, while the convictions were upheld based on the strong testimony of the victims, the sentence was adjusted to reflect the concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the overwhelming amount of past abuse information presented.