Excessive sentence

C-2007-554

  • Post author:
  • 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal and affirmed most aspects of the lower court's decision, but also instructed the lower court to correct some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.

Continue ReadingC-2007-554

F-2006-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence.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

Continue ReadingF-2006-648

F-2007-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-66, Lyle Wayne Strickland appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including burglary and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one for eluding a police officer, ordering it to be dismissed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2007-66

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015

F-2006-538

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-538, Manh Micahel Mach appealed his conviction for several drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse three of the convictions and affirmed the others. One member of the court dissented. Mach faced multiple charges, including unlawful possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute, as well as failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, unlawful use of surveillance equipment, and possession of a firearm during a felony. He was sentenced to numerous years in prison and fines, with all sentences to be served one after the other. The court looked at several issues raised by Mach. First, they confirmed that he had waived his right to a jury trial knowingly. They also found that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop him, which led to a lawful search of his car after he consented. However, Mach's convictions for possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute were seen as overlapping offenses. He was found guilty of only one violation for possessing these drugs for distribution, meaning the court reversed two of those drug convictions. The court also agreed with Mach that he was wrongly convicted for failing to obtain a tax stamp because there was no evidence presented about this charge. Thus, that conviction was reversed and dismissed. The evidence showed that Mach was guilty of using surveillance equipment to avoid police detection while selling drugs, so that conviction was affirmed. The court held that Mach's overall sentence was not excessive and within legal limits, leading to the conclusion that other convictions must remain as is. In summary, the court reversed and dismissed some convictions while affirming others based on their findings regarding the lawfulness of the search, evidence presented, and the nature of the offenses.

Continue ReadingF-2006-538

F-2006-17

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-17, McFarland appealed his conviction for sexual battery and second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for sexual battery but modified the sentence for the second-degree rape by instrumentation by vacating the $10,000 fine. One judge dissented. McFarland was found guilty of two serious crimes and was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison and fines. He argued that charging him with both crimes was unfair because they were part of the same event, meaning he faced double punishment. The court examined the evidence and determined that the acts were separate enough that charging him with both was allowed and did not violate his rights. He also claimed that the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that affected his chances for a fair trial. Some of these comments were found to be improper, but the court decided they did not seriously harm McFarland’s case. Additionally, McFarland argued that the instructions given to the jury about the fines were wrong, which led to the $10,000 fine for the second-degree rape charge being improper. The court agreed with him on this point, finding that jurors were wrongly instructed that they had to impose a fine. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction and the sentence for sexual battery, it modified the sentence for the second-degree rape charge by removing the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2006-17

F-2006-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-348, Charles Terrell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to ten years. One judge dissented. Charles Terrell was found guilty by a jury for molesting a young girl. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison. During the trial, evidence about other crimes was brought up, which included testimony from Terrell's former step-daughter who said Terrell had abused her too. Terrell argued that this testimony was unfair and should not have been allowed, as it could make the jury think he was guilty of more than just the crime he was accused of in this case. The court agreed that mentioning the other crimes was not handled well, as it wasn't properly limited. However, they also believed the main evidence from the victim in this case was strong and enough to show he was guilty. They found that allowing the other testimony did not change the fact that Terrell was guilty, so his conviction stood. On the topic of his sentence, the court thought about how the other crimes evidence might have led the jury to give him a much longer sentence than they would have otherwise. Because of this, they decided to reduce his sentence to ten years instead of twenty. The court concluded that the main evidence was solid, but the details about his past accusations were overly prejudicial and affected the severity of his punishment. The judge also noted that a photograph of the victim was properly allowed into evidence and was not seen as too harmful. In the end, while the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen the time Terrell would spend in prison, trimming it down to ten years.

Continue ReadingF-2006-348

F-2006-408

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-408, Johnny Lee Whitworth appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Whitworth was found guilty of killing someone, but the jury believed he was too drunk to intend to kill, so they convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. The jury gave him a sentence of 100 years in prison. Whitworth raised several arguments in his appeal: 1. He argued that the jury instructions didn't mention self-defense as a possible defense to manslaughter. 2. He claimed the evidence was not enough to prove he did not act in self-defense. 3. He complained that the jury was not informed about the 85% Rule, which means a person must serve only a portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 4. He thought his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the jury instructions were overall fair and included necessary information about his defenses. They also concluded that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide against his claim of self-defense. However, the court noted an error regarding the jury not being informed about the 85% Rule when they asked about the actual time Whitworth would serve. This was an important mistake because it might have led the jury to give a longer sentence than they would have if they had understood how the 85% Rule worked. Given that this error occurred and that Whitworth did not have a criminal record, the court decided to reduce his sentence from 100 years to 50 years. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction, they felt it was fair to change Whitworth's sentence to lesser punishment due to the lack of information given to the jury about his potential time in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2006-408

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

C-2005-1

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2006-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-780

C-2006-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-863, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for further review. One member of the court dissented. To explain further, the case began when the petitioner, Wilkerson, entered a blind plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty without any deal from the prosecutor, to a serious charge of First Degree Manslaughter. This happened in the Tulsa County District Court. In June 2006, the court accepted his plea and decided that he would spend life in prison, but he would only have to serve 20 years of that sentence right away. The court also ordered him to pay $10,000 as restitution. A little later, in July 2006, Wilkerson wanted to take back his plea and filed a motion to withdraw it, but the court said no after a hearing in August. Following this, Wilkerson decided to appeal and asked for a special review from the OCCA. During the appeal, Wilkerson pointed out three main areas he felt were wrong: 1. He believed his sentence was affected by bias and improper evidence presented in court, leading to a sentence that was too harsh. 2. He argued that he should not have to pay the $10,000 fine since it was not mentioned correctly in the sentence. 3. He wanted the official records to show the date his sentence was first pronounced, which was June 23, 2006. After looking at all the records, it was determined that Wilkerson's plea was made willingly and his sentence was not excessive. The court agreed that the $10,000 fine was wrongly imposed and should be removed, but they also acknowledged that the trial court had done the right thing by dismissing the restitution order since no evidence supported it. The decision concluded with the court denying Wilkerson’s request for a special review but correcting the record to eliminate the fine and officially reflecting the correct date of sentencing.

Continue ReadingC-2006-863

F-2006-301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2006-301

F-2006-598

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.

Continue ReadingF-2006-598

F-2006-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2006-113

F-2005-1193

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1193

F-2004-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-914, Mark Wayne Johnson appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Wayne Johnson was found guilty of Child Sexual Abuse and sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a fine. He believed that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial. Johnson pointed out that his lawyer failed to bring in expert witnesses who could have helped his case and also did not challenge important evidence properly. Johnson raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that the trial judge acted unfairly by scolding his lawyer in front of the jury. This made Johnson feel that he did not get a fair trial. He also argued that important evidence and witness credibility were not handled properly by the trial court, and that numerous mistakes made by his lawyer affected the outcome of the trial. The court reviewed these claims and found that there were many significant errors in how Johnson was represented. The judges said that Johnson's lawyer did not cross-examine witnesses properly or address inconsistencies in the testimonies. They concluded that all these mistakes could have changed the trial's outcome, meaning Johnson did not receive the fair trial he deserved. As a result of these findings, the court reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-914

C 2006-497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC 2006-497

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

F-2005-529

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-529

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527