In OCCA case No. RE 2010-0600, Beau Ashley Kifer appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for two of the counts but reversed the revocation for the other two counts because the court did not have the authority to act on those counts since the sentences had already expired. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-794, Allen Eugene Bratcher appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to thirty years, although they affirmed his conviction. One judge dissented from the decision to reduce the sentence, stating that there was no error in how the prosecutor conducted the trial. Bratcher was found guilty in Garfield County and originally sentenced to seventy years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including concerns about his sentence being too harsh and the conduct of the prosecutor. The court found that while some of the prosecutor's statements were improper, the conviction did not need to be reversed. The judges determined that the long sentence shocked their sense of justice, especially given the circumstances of the case and Bratcher's lack of prior accusations. They reviewed the prosecutor's comments, especially those appealing to the jury's sympathy, and decided that these remarks contributed to the excessive original sentence. The court also considered Bratcher's claims regarding his lawyer's performance, but they ruled that the trial lawyer's decisions were part of their strategy. Ultimately, while the court affirmed Bratcher's conviction, they thought the sentence should be reduced to thirty years instead of seventy. The decision allowed the judges to agree on many points but showed differences regarding what the final sentence should be.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019, Rico Raynelle Pearson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation from a full seven years to three years with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved two prior cases where Pearson pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and received a suspended sentence of seven years. However, the State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentence after he allegedly committed new violations, including possession of drugs and traffic offenses. During the revocation hearing, the judge determined that Pearson had violated his probation and revoked his suspended sentence completely. However, Pearson argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that the punishment was too harsh for the minor violations he committed. The appeals court agreed that the original decision to revoke the entire sentence was excessive because the stated reasons were not correct and the violations were minor. The court noted that one reason for the revocation was based on a misunderstanding regarding earlier convictions that were not relevant. Consequently, they reduced the length of the revocation while still affirming the revocation of some portion of his sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1066, Rodney Dennis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirteen years to eight years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-15, Alfred Burke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Burke was found guilty in Oklahoma County and received a very long sentence of 273 years for each crime, to be served one after the other. This was due to previous convictions he had. Burke disagreed with his punishment and claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. He argued that a law he was judged under was unfair and went against his rights. He also said that evidence from a previous case should not have been shown in court. He thought his sentence was too harsh and believed that evidence from other crimes made the trial unfair. Finally, he believed that all the errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court looked closely at all of Burke's arguments. They found that the law he challenged was not unconstitutional. Most of the evidence against him was strong, especially the testimony from the person he victimized and DNA proof of his actions. However, the court agreed that showing evidence of his past crime likely impacted the jury's choice on punishment more than it should have. As a result, they changed his punishment to life imprisonment for both crimes, but now those sentences would be served at the same time instead of one after the other. The judges concluded that while there were some mistakes, they did not think these mistakes were enough to change his convictions. One judge did not agree with changing the sentences at all, believing the previous evidence was important for the case.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-667, Daniel Timothy Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Lewd Molestation, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for some counts but reversed and remanded other counts based on the statute of limitations. One judge dissented. The case involved Hogan, who lived with his wife and her three daughters, all of whom had learning disabilities. Testimonies revealed that Hogan had sexually abused the girls multiple times over several years, starting when they were very young. The incidents included inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. Hogan claimed that some charges should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The court agreed with him regarding several counts, concluding that the state did not press charges in time based on when the victims knew about the incidents and their nature as crimes. Hogan also argued that the trial judge unfairly imposed consecutive sentences rather than allowing them to run concurrently, as he claimed there was a courthouse policy against such decisions. However, the court found that the judge considered the facts of the case in deciding how to sentence Hogan. Ultimately, while some convictions against Hogan were reversed because of the statute of limitations, his life sentence and the convictions that were upheld reflected the seriousness of the abuse he inflicted on the young victims, leaving a lasting impact on their lives.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-438, Marcus Laquine Petty appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court, but found that a hearing was needed regarding the amount of the Victim's Compensation Assessment. Two members of the court dissented regarding the second count of the conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-411, Rocky Allen McCracken appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but modified his five-year sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-255, Kayla D. Robertson appealed her conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a firearm during a felony, possession of a controlled drug within 1,000 feet of a school, and destroying evidence. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the $50,000 fine imposed for the manufacturing charge but affirmed the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-214, Joe Lee Birmingham appealed his conviction for three counts of lewd and indecent acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to four years imprisonment in each count, to be served concurrently, and as modified, the decision was affirmed. One judge dissented. Joe Lee Birmingham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of lewd acts against a child in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to four years for each count, and the sentences were to be served back-to-back. Birmingham had raised several arguments in his appeal, saying his trial was unfair because important evidence was not allowed, his lawyer didn’t help him properly, and other issues with the trial and sentencing. First, he argued that the judge would not let him show he had a medical condition called ALS, which he thought was important for his defense. However, the court concluded that this evidence did not really change the situation since he admitted to touching the girl, even if he said it wasn’t inappropriate. Next, Birmingham claimed his lawyer made many mistakes that hurt his case, but the court found that the mistakes did not likely change the trial's outcome. He also said that the proof his actions were wrong wasn’t good enough, but the court disagreed, stating that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach a conclusion. Birmingham’s complaints about not getting the right jury instructions were found to be invalid, as he did not raise them during the trial. Regarding the idea that changing one of the charges after the state had presented its evidence was incorrect, the court found it was done properly. Birmingham said the prosecutor behaved badly during the trial, but the court believed the comments made were just pointing out reasonable conclusions from evidence. His argument about the length of his sentences being too harsh was also denied. The court even said they believed he should serve his sentences concurrently, rather than back-to-back, because of his health issues. Overall, the court felt that the trial was fair, and even if there were some minor issues, they did not believe they negatively affected the outcome much. Thus, they decided his sentences would be adjusted to only four years overall for his actions, instead of having to serve each count one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-229, an individual appealed his conviction for several counts of child sexual abuse and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count. One judge dissented. The individual, Timothy Ray Belvin, faced multiple serious charges in a district court. The charges included child sexual abuse, procuring a child for pornography, and lewd acts with a child. During the trial, some charges were dropped, but he was found guilty on others. The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts and ten years on the rest, with the sentences being served at the same time. In his appeal, the individual raised several arguments. He claimed that some of his convictions should be overturned due to the statute of limitations, which limits the time for prosecuting a crime. He also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove certain charges and that he did not receive proper legal help during his trial. Furthermore, he believed the punishment was too severe. After reviewing everything, the court determined that the prosecution was allowed to pursue one of the charges because there was evidence that acts occurred within the time frame allowed by law. They also found enough evidence for the conviction on several counts. However, they agreed that one charge did not have enough proof, so they reversed that specific conviction. The court also concluded that the defense was effective and that the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances. As a result, the court upheld most of the convictions and instructed the lower court to dismiss one charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1253, L. V. Drennon, III, appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) within 2000 feet of a school and conspiracy to commit a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Drennon was found guilty of having marijuana and methamphetamine with the intention to distribute, as well as taking part in a conspiracy to distribute these drugs. He was sentenced to 40 years for each of these charges, which would be served at the same time. Drennon argued that he did not receive good help from his lawyer and that his punishment was too harsh. The court looked carefully at Drennon's claims and the evidence surrounding the case, including courtroom records and transcripts. They found that Drennon's lawyer had provided him with reasonable help. Regarding the punishment, the court discovered that the jury had been given wrong information about the length of the possible sentences for the crimes. They had been wrongly told that Drennon faced a longer-term sentence than what was actually correct. The correct rules allow for a shorter minimum sentence of 6 years for possession with intent to distribute and a minimum of 4 years for conspiracy after previous felony convictions. Because of this mistake, the court decided that the jury's punishment was too extreme. As a result, they changed Drennon's sentences to 20 years for each charge, to be served at the same time. In summary, the court agreed with the conviction but changed the length of Drennon’s sentence due to the mistakes made about punishment options.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-856, Ricky Louis Hunter appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 and Unlawful Use of a Computer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count while dismissing the second count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-201, Kristopher Lee Morphew appealed his conviction for Second-degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Morphew's Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Morphew was found guilty of Second-degree Murder after a jury trial. The jury decided on a punishment of twenty years of prison time. However, Morphew argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to several reasons, including ineffective help from his lawyer, errors in jury instructions, and misconduct by the prosecution. The main issue that led to the court's decision was about how the jury was instructed regarding what depraved mind meant in the context of Second-degree Murder. The jury was confused about a key part of the instruction, and the trial judge did not clarify it properly. Because of this, the court found that the instructions did not adequately explain the law and could have led to a misunderstanding during the trial. Since this error was significant enough to possibly change the outcome of the case, the court concluded that Morphew deserved a new trial. The other points raised by Morphew were not discussed because the error regarding jury instructions was sufficient to reverse the conviction. In summary, the court's decision sends Morphew back for a new trial to ensure he receives a fair chance to defend himself under the correct laws and instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1208, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Carr being convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The main issue during his appeal was that Carr was not given a fair trial because he could not remove a juror who showed bias towards police officers. This juror openly stated he would believe police testimonies more than other witness statements, which raised concerns about his ability to be fair. The court agreed that this bias should have led to the juror's removal. They noted that when any doubts exist about a juror's fairness, they should favor the accused. Since this bias was significant, the court ruled that Carr did not receive proper justice and ordered a new trial. They decided not to consider other issues raised in the appeal since the need for a new trial was clear. In summary, the court found that an unfair juror could have influenced the case against Carr, leading to their decision to reverse the conviction and mandate a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-829, Jeffery L. Jinks appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. To explain a bit more: Jeffery Jinks pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Sexual Abuse in a district court. The judge accepted his plea and wanted a report to see what his sentence should be. Before he was sentenced, Jinks wanted to take back his plea but the court said no. During his sentencing, he was given a very long sentence of 35 years in prison, with most of that being suspended. This means that he would only serve part of the sentence unless he did something wrong again. Jinks then asked again to take back his plea after the sentencing, but once more the district court said no. After appealing, the court looked at a few important questions: If Jinks really understood what pleading guilty meant, if it was fair for him to be charged as he was, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court decided that Jinks understood his plea and that it was not unfair for him to be charged under the law. However, they did think his sentence was too harsh given his background and decided to change it from 35 years to 20 years in prison, reducing the time he would actually have to serve. So, overall, the court agreed Jinks did something wrong and upheld his conviction but thought the punishment needed to be lighter.