Fair and Impartial Proceeding Archives

C-2015-942

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 15, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-942, Prince Edward Myers appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Running a Roadblock and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm several parts of the case. However, they found errors concerning sentences that exceeded what was allowed by law. Myers received a mix of sentences, including prison time and fines, and the court ruled that some of his jail sentences were not valid because the offenses only allowed for fines. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

RE-2013-279

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2014
Post category:RE

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not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.

C 2009-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 26, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2009-665, Sutton appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Sutton's request to withdraw his guilty plea. Sutton dissented. Petitioner Donald Edward Sutton, Jr. had pleaded guilty to a serious crime. The judge sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he would only serve eight of those years before possibly getting out. After the plea, Sutton thought things were unfair and said he didn't understand everything when he agreed to plead guilty. Sutton said he didn’t know about important details like having to spend 85% of his time in prison before being eligible for parole or that he would have to register as a sex offender. He felt that he didn't get the help he needed from his lawyer when he entered his plea and when he tried to take it back later. Sutton thought his 20-year sentence was too harsh, especially because he believed there were reasons to be lenient. After reviewing all the information provided, the court agreed that Sutton wasn't given all the facts he needed to make an informed choice about his plea. This omission made his agreement invalid since he didn’t enter it knowingly and voluntarily. The court decided that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and gave orders for the case to go back for further consideration. The other claims Sutton made about his lawyer and the fairness of his sentence became unnecessary to discuss because of this main issue. In summary, Sutton was given a chance to change his plea because the court found that he wasn’t properly informed about important consequences of his decision.

C-2009-317

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-317, Lee Otis Robinson, Jr. appealed his conviction for entering a no contest plea. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Robinson a new hearing to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Robinson had entered his no contest plea in the Oklahoma County District Court but later wanted to change that decision. He argued that he didn't fully understand what he was doing when he entered the plea and that he had been confused and misled. Additionally, Robinson claimed that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. His lawyer was supposed to represent him during the plea hearing and also during the hearing where Robinson asked to change his plea. However, during the second hearing, the lawyer ended up saying things that were against Robinson’s interests. This created a problem because it meant that Robinson wasn't getting fair help from his lawyer, and he was disadvantaged in his efforts to withdraw his plea. The court found that it was important for Robinson to have a different, unbiased lawyer for a fair hearing. They decided he should be allowed to have a new hearing with a lawyer who had no conflict of interest. The ruling meant that Robinson's case would be sent back to the district court so that the new hearing could take place.