In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-668, Aaron M. Holmes appealed his conviction for Possessing A Firearm After Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Aaron M. Holmes was found guilty by a jury for having a gun after previously being convicted of felonies. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and a fine of $10,000. Holmes appealed the conviction, stating several reasons he believed the trial was unfair. He argued that the prosecutor made mistakes by asking the jury to think about evidence from the first part of the trial in later parts. He also claimed his lawyer didn't help him well and that the jury was unfairly influenced by information about his past sentences, leading to a harsh punishment. The jury did clear Holmes of two other charges related to robbery and assault. During the court's review, it was found that the prosecutor was correct in including evidence from the earlier stages of the trial when discussing Holmes's situation. Because Holmes did not raise this concern during the trial, he could not challenge it fully on appeal. Concerning Holmes's claim about the prosecutor mentioning his past sentences, the court found that this was indeed a mistake since it could affect how the jury decided on his punishment. Because the jury opted for the maximum sentence possible, the court modified Holmes's punishment from life in prison to 30 years. As for the argument about the lawyer, the court decided it didn't make sense to say the lawyer was ineffective since the earlier issue was found not to be an actual error. Thus, this part of Holmes's appeal was denied. The court ultimately decided to keep the conviction but changed the length of the prison sentence to be less than what was initially given.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-305, Lonnie Waylon Craighead appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Craighead's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Craighead was found guilty in a jury trial and sentenced to thirty years in prison with a $50,000 fine. He raised several complaints about his trial, including that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, his arrest was not lawful, and his rights were violated during questioning. He also claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and he was not given fair representation by his lawyer. After reviewing the case, the court wrote that they did not see a problem with how the prosecution handled the case. They felt there was enough evidence for the jury to find Craighead guilty. The court believed the police had valid reasons for stopping and questioning him. They stated that Craighead had been informed of his rights before being interviewed and that he agreed to talk. The court also noted that while the prosecutor made a few mistakes, they did not harm Craighead’s right to a fair trial. The details of his previous crimes were shared, but it did not seem to affect the outcome of the trial. The jury also had enough evidence to verify that Craighead had prior felony convictions. Regarding the claim of ineffective help from his lawyer, the court decided that Craighead was not denied a good defense. They found that the sentence he received was not excessive, given the nature of his actions and past crimes. However, the court did find an issue with the jail fees Craighead was assessed after sentencing. These fees were not discussed during the trial, and Craighead was not given a chance to contest them. Therefore, the court sent the case back to the district court to address the jail fee situation. In summary, the court upheld Craighead’s conviction but revised the part about the jail fees, ordering a hearing for that matter.
In OCCA case No. F 2012-1131, Antonio Herman Cervantes appealed his conviction for sixty-nine counts of child sexual abuse and one count of child physical abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court while ordering the correction of the sentencing documentation. One judge dissented. Cervantes was found guilty of serious crimes against children and received a significant prison sentence of forty years for each count. The court decided that some counts would be served concurrently, while others would be served consecutively. This meant that Cervantes would spend a long time in prison before being eligible for parole. Cervantes raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the jury instructions at his trial were not correct, but the court found that these instructions were adequate since there were no objections made at the trial. Therefore, the court only looked for plain errors and did not find any. Next, Cervantes claimed that many of his convictions should not have happened because they involved double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence showed these were separate acts that could be considered individual offenses. Cervantes also thought that the trial judge did not treat him fairly. Yet, since there were no objections to any of the judge's comments during the trial, the court reviewed these comments and concluded that they did not show bias against Cervantes. He further claimed that he was denied a speedy trial. The court reviewed the reasons for trial delays, noting that they mostly stemmed from issues with his defense attorneys and were not caused by the state. The court decided that the delays were not a violation of his rights because he did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the wait. Cervantes also argued that there were mistakes in how his previous convictions were presented during the trial, but he did not raise objections when the evidence was introduced, so the court did not find any reversible error. Another point he raised was that the written judgment did not match what was said in court regarding his sentence. The court agreed that his sentencing documents needed to be corrected to reflect the proper orders given during the trial. Cervantes also suggested that his lawyer did not provide effective assistance because he failed to complain about certain aspects during the trial. However, the court found that there was no evidence of how this alleged absence of support affected the outcome of his case. He also noted instances of what he thought was misconduct by the prosecution but concluded that overall, he was not denied a fair trial due to these points. The court found that his sentences were appropriate and did not see any major errors that would warrant changing its earlier decisions. Finally, the court ruled that there was no cumulative effect of errors since no individual error was found to be significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, the court affirmed the conviction while ordering the necessary corrections in the documentation of the sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-478, Michael Ray Baack appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court while remanding the case to correct the judgment regarding the fine on Count 1. One member of the court dissented. Michael Ray Baack was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for having controlled substances and for being publicly intoxicated. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison and pay a $2,000 fine for the drug charge, along with thirty days in jail for public intoxication. The judge ordered both sentences to be served one after the other but waived the fine on the drug charge. Baack raised several questions on appeal. He argued about the evidence being enough to convict him of the drug charge, how other crimes were presented during the trial, the lack of instructions on a lesser drug offense, the fine, and whether his sentence was too harsh. 1. The court found that the evidence showed Baack had knowingly possessed drugs. The jury had enough proof to make a logical decision based on the facts presented. 2. About the other crimes evidence, the court mentioned that Baack had introduced his prior record himself, so he could not complain about that during the appeal since it was his choice to bring it up. 3. Baack's request for a lower charge on drug paraphernalia was not granted because he claimed he was innocent. The court said that when someone claims they did not do something, they cannot ask for lesser charges. 4. The fine for the drug charge was waived, and both Baack and the state agreed that the case should go back to the lower court to correct the documents to show there was no fine. 5. The claim that Baack was hurt by showing his previous felony conviction was denied because it did not affect the outcome of the case. The court stated that the sentences were appropriate and followed the law. In conclusion, the court upheld the findings of the lower court and noted there was no need for a new trial or changes to the verdicts, except for correcting the issue with the fine.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-699, Holstine appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request and remanded the case for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-671, Cruz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Cruz was found guilty because he used a knife to attack another person. The main question was whether he acted in self-defense. The jury believed that Cruz was the aggressor and that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. Cruz said he acted in self-defense, but the court found that the jury had enough evidence to support their decision that he did not qualify for this defense. Cruz raised several issues in his appeal. Firstly, he claimed that the evidence was not strong enough to convict him. However, the court said that the evidence was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty without self-defense. Next, Cruz said there was a problem with how the jury was chosen and that it affected the trial. The court disagreed and said that the trial judge acted correctly when explaining how long the trial would take. Cruz also mentioned that he should have been credited for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court agreed that this was an important point but noted there was no written record of this credit. However, they decided the case should be sent back to the lower court to correct this and make sure he received proper credit. He argued about the restitution order, saying the court should have determined how much he needed to pay. The court stated there was no error because a hearing was scheduled to decide on restitution after he was released. Cruz felt that the sentence he received was too harsh and that the fee for his attorney was excessive. The court ruled that the sentence was fair considering the crime and that the attorney fee would be reviewed later to check if it needed to be lowered. Lastly, Cruz claimed all the mistakes added up to mean he did not have a fair trial. The court ruled there were no real errors, so this point did not apply. In conclusion, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence but ordered that Cruz's sentence be revised to include credit for time served.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-644, Jones appealed his conviction for kidnapping, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacate the fine related to the drug paraphernalia charge. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in which he faced several charges, including kidnapping and drug offenses. The jury sentenced him to thirty years for the kidnapping and twenty years for the cocaine possession, with the drug paraphernalia charge resulting in one year and a $1,000 fine. In his appeal, Jones raised multiple issues, including whether the jury was properly instructed, if his trial was fair, and if his lawyer was effective. He specifically challenged how the trial was conducted regarding the instructions given to the jury and the evidence allowed by the court. The court found that the jury had been adequately instructed and that any mistakes made in the instructions did not affect the final outcome of the trial. While it agreed that the jury was improperly instructed about determining punishment in a bifurcated trial for the misdemeanor charge, it noted that all of his sentences ran concurrently, which reduced the impact of that error. Jones also argued that introducing evidence of his other crimes was unfair, but the court decided that this evidence was relevant and crucial for the jury to understand the context of the case. As for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court ruled that Jones failed to demonstrate how his lawyer's performance was deficient or how it affected the outcome of his trial. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the charges against him and found that his sentences were appropriate, rejecting his claim that they were excessive. Finally, when considering if the combined errors denied him a fair trial, the court decided that the errors did not undermine his conviction, except for vacating the fine of $1,000 for the drug paraphernalia charge. Overall, the court affirmed the convictions for kidnapping and possession of cocaine but made one adjustment regarding the fine for the drug paraphernalia charge due to a procedural issue.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-70, Christopher Stinson, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Arson, and Manufacturing Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the Felony Murder charge and reverse the Manufacturing charge, stating it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2010-422, Kelsey Danielle Dodson appealed her conviction for child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the imposed fine and assessments. One judge dissented. Kelsey was tried by a jury for two crimes: child abuse by injury and child neglect. The jury found her not guilty of child abuse but guilty of child neglect. They decided she should go to prison for twenty years. Kelsey thought this punishment was too harsh and believed that the court made mistakes by adding fines not decided by the jury. Kelsey argued four main points in her appeal. First, she felt that twenty years in prison was excessive. Second, she thought that the court wrongly imposed a fine without the jury saying it should. Third, she claimed that the court didn't follow the rules when it decided she needed to pay for victim compensation. Fourth, she said the trial court should not have made her pay into a court fund since it was not within its authority. The appellate court looked closely at what Kelsey brought up. They agreed that the twenty-year prison sentence was appropriate for this kind of crime. They found no reason to change that part of the judgment. However, they sided with Kelsey concerning the fines and assessments. The court ruled that the fine imposed by the trial court should be removed because it didn’t match the jury's decision. The court also pointed out that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors required for assessing victim compensation, so that assessment was canceled too. Overall, the court decided that Kelsey would keep her sentence of twenty years in prison, but any additional fines or assessments imposed upon her were removed. The decision was modified to reflect these changes. One judge on the court disagreed with the decision to vacate the victim compensation assessment, arguing that since Kelsey did not object during the trial, she should not have been able to appeal it. This dissenting opinion highlighted that the trial court had sufficient evidence related to the assessment, given that they received a pre-sentence investigation report. In summary, Kelsey’s prison sentence was upheld, but the extra financial penalties were dropped, leading to a mix of agreement and disagreement among the judges involved in the case.