In OCCA case No. F-2017-08, John Kyle Crandall appealed his conviction for first degree murder, concealing stolen property, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for concealing stolen property. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CASE NO. RE-2018-357** **JAMES MONROE JONES, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** James Monroe Jones (Appellant) appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519, adjudicated by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. On June 16, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in Cases CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, receiving concurrent sentences with significant portions suspended. Specifically, in CF-2008-7440, he was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the first five years served. Similar sentences were imposed for offenses stemming from the other cases. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea in CF-2013-6519 for an amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the first year served. On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences due to reported violations, including failure to report, change of address, and new criminal activity related to Domestic Assault and Battery. Enhanced allegations were added on March 7, 2018, encompassing additional crimes attributed to Appellant. A hearing was conducted on April 2, 2018. Appellant's counsel objected to the State's evidence, citing inadequate discovery. The trial court, however, noted Appellant had received relevant documents previously, and dismissed the objections after reviewing the evidence. Judge Henderson ultimately found Appellant had violated his probation through specific new criminal conduct and revoked his suspended sentences in full. Appellant presents two propositions of error on appeal: **PROPOSITION I:** The trial court violated Jones's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II § 7 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. **PROPOSITION II:** Defense counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel. **ANALYSIS** In addressing Proposition I, Appellant contends that the overruling of his objections regarding discovery violations deprived him of due process. It is established that defendants have minimal due process rights in revocation hearings, including evidence disclosure. However, since Appellant’s counsel did not request discovery prior to the hearing, the burden falls on them for preparation. The trial court did not deny Appellant the opportunity to defend—therefore, Proposition I is denied. Regarding Proposition II, Appellant asserts his counsel's ineffectiveness based on a lack of preparedness stemming from unrequested discovery. The Strickland standard evaluates ineffective assistance claims through performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Appellant has not substantiated claims that better-prepared counsel would have altered the outcome, as evidence showed several violations were confirmed. Thus, Proposition II is also denied. **DECISION** The order from the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 is **AFFIRMED**. --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL** Katie Samples, Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender **ON APPEAL** David Nichols, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Attorney General Keeley L. Miller, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-357_1734695459.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2016-994, the appellant, Phillip Eric Winbush III, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Winbush's conviction, but modified the indigent defense fee to $1,000. No one dissented. Winbush had been convicted by a jury and was sentenced to eight years in prison due to his prior felony convictions. He raised several claims in his appeal. He first argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, which he believed deprived him of a fair trial. However, the court found that while the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that Winbush claimed were improper, they did not have enough impact to make the trial unfair. The prosecution's comments were taken in context, and the jury had strong evidence before it regarding Winbush's knowing possession of methamphetamine. Winbush also raised an issue about the indigent defense fee being too high. The law stated that the maximum fee should be $1,000, but the court had mistakenly assessed a $1,250 fee. The state acknowledged this error, and the court agreed to modify the fee to the correct amount. Lastly, Winbush claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, but since the court already granted relief regarding the indigent defense fee, this argument was considered moot. In summary, the court upheld Winbush's conviction while correcting the fee he was charged for his defense, ensuring the amount was in line with the law.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAVID RUBLE, II,** **Appellant,** **VS.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2016-843** **FILED DEC 14 2017** **SUMMARY OPINION** *KUEHN, JUDGE:* David Ruble II was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Felony Murder with the predicate Attempted Robbery by Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7; and Count III, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2014-2691. Following the jury's recommendation, the Honorable William D. LaFortune sentenced Ruble to life imprisonment (Count I) and ten (10) years imprisonment (Count III), to run consecutively. Ruble appeals from these convictions and sentences. Ruble raises five propositions of error in support of his appeal: I. The trial court's erroneous rulings on challenges for cause deprived Appellant of his full complement of peremptory challenges to use at his discretion and prevented his ability to remove objectionable jurors. II. The cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct constituted plain error and deprived Appellant of a fair trial. III. The trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on lesser offenses. IV. Mr. Ruble was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. V. The accumulation of errors deprived Mr. Ruble of a fair trial and the due process of law secured to him. **DECISION:** After thorough consideration of the entire record, we deny Ruble's propositions of error. 1. **Proposition I:** The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruble's challenges for cause. The record does not support that the jurors were biased, nor was there a showing that trial counsel properly preserved this issue. 2. **Proposition II:** Ruble's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not substantiated. Many of his complaints were unobjected to and reviewed for plain error, which was not found. 3. **Proposition III:** There was no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, as Ruble's defense was that he was not involved in the crime. 4. **Proposition IV:** Trial counsel's performance was not deficient. Ruble did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's actions. 5. **Proposition V:** With no fundamental error established, the claim of cumulative error fails. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. **ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL:** Michael Manning 624 South Denver, Ste. 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 **ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:** Rhiannon Sisk Homicide Direct Appeals Div. Oklahoma Indigent Defense System P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:** Becky Johnson Mike Hunter Benjamin Fu 500 S. Denver, Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, J.; LUMPKIN, P.J., CONCUR IN RESULTS; LEWIS, V.P.J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR; ROWLAND, J., CONCUR. **[Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2016-843_1734264868.pdf)**
In OCCA case No. F-2016-562, Kadrian Daniels appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except that the fine imposed on the Possession count was vacated. One judge dissented. Daniels was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-year sentence for the robbery and an additional eight years and a $10,000 fine for the illegal firearm possession. Daniels raised several concerns on appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes that affected his right to a fair trial. First, Daniels objected to a question asked by the prosecutor to a detective about the number of robberies that happened in Tulsa during the past year. He felt that this question could alarm the jury. However, the court decided that the question was allowed because it was relevant to the case and didn’t unfairly sway the jury. Next, Daniels claimed that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the closing arguments, which made his trial unfair. Some of the comments made by the prosecutor were challenged, but the court ruled that those comments were acceptable and did not harm the fairness of the trial. Additionally, Daniels complained about the jury being instructed that a $10,000 fine was mandatory if they convicted him of the firearm charge. Since Daniels’ lawyer did not object to this instruction during the trial, the court reviewed this issue only for plain error. The court found that the instruction was incorrect because the law does not require such a fine. This error was significant enough that the court decided to remove the fine. Moreover, Daniels argued that his attorney did not provide effective help during the trial, especially for not calling out the errors made by the prosecution or the judge. The court considered this but concluded that the issues raised by Daniels were not serious enough to have changed the outcome of the trial. The final decision affirmed the conviction but removed the unnecessary fine, ensuring that the legal process remained fair despite the mistakes noted during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-696, Mesfun appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting an open container of liquor, driving without a license, and driving left of center. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence on one count and affirmed the rest of the judgment. One justice dissented. Mesfun was found guilty of multiple offenses in Tulsa County District Court. The charges included driving drunk, having an open container of alcohol while driving, not having a driver's license, and driving in the wrong lane. He received a long sentence, including years in prison and fines, to be served one after the other. Mesfun's appeal included three main points. First, he argued that the jury was wrongly told how much punishment they could give him for transporting an open container of liquor. The court agreed with him on this point and changed that sentence to a shorter jail time and fine. Second, Mesfun claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which hurt his chances of a fair trial. However, the court found that the prosecutor's comments were allowed and did not harm Mesfun's case. Third, he said that his lawyer did not do a good job to help him. The court looked at this claim and said that his lawyer's actions did not affect the trial's outcome, so this point was also denied. Overall, the court modified one part of his sentence but upheld the rest of the decision from the trial court.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-963, Daniel Bryan Kelley appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Assault and Battery but reversed the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and remanded for resentencing. One judge dissented. Kelley was found guilty by a jury of committing rape and an assault. The crimes occurred in Tulsa County. The jury recommended a sentence of 20 years for the rape and a 90-day sentence for the assault, which would happen at the same time as the longer sentence. Kelley appealed for several reasons. Firstly, Kelley argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence that the victim had previously said the crime happened somewhere else. The court found this request did not violate his rights. The court also ruled that other evidence, including statements from witnesses, was presented correctly according to the law. Kelley further claimed that the detective’s testimony included hearsay and should not have been allowed. The court disagreed, stating that the testimony did not qualify as hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter. He also objected to the admission of a Kansas judgment that concerns his past criminal record. The court found that the state failed to prove that this past conviction should be used to increase his sentence as a felony under Oklahoma law, which was a significant factor in the decision to remand for resentencing. Kelley argued that the prosecutor made mistakes during his closing arguments, but the court didn’t find enough errors to affect his right to a fair trial. On the matter of whether Kelley received effective help from his lawyer, the court determined that no deficiencies were present that impacted his case. The final summary was that while Kelley’s conviction for Assault and Battery remained intact, the conviction for Rape by Instrumentation was reversed due to a lack of sufficient evidence regarding his previous crime, leading to a mandate for resentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1078, Robert Bradley Champlain appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations against Champlain for inappropriate conduct with a minor, and a jury found him guilty. Each count resulted in a recommendation for life imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Champlain raised several arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the trial process, including the imposition of consecutive sentences as a punishment for opting for a jury trial and issues regarding evidence of his past convictions. The court did not find merit in these claims. It clarified that the determination of consecutive versus concurrent sentences is within the trial court's discretion. The court also concluded that prior felony convictions had been proven properly, with no significant errors affecting Champlain's rights during the trial. They explained that the State's evidence was sufficient for the jury to uphold the conviction. Champlain also argued that the conduct of the prosecution and the trial court's instructions were unfair. However, the court stated that the issues raised did not prove any misconduct that made the trial fundamentally unfair. His claims regarding ineffective assistance from his counsel were also dismissed, as the court did not see a failure that affected the outcome of the trial. While Champlain did receive life sentences, the court vacated the post-imprisonment supervision, stating it was not applicable in cases of life sentences. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while correcting certain references related to the timing of the offenses.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-457, Christopher Wayne Goldman appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Sodomy, and Incest. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions for the first three counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Incest. One member of the court dissented. Goldman was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses against his niece. The jury recommended prison sentences that ran together for counts related to rape, sodomy, and separately for the count of incest. Goldman raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt for some charges, that unfair evidence was presented, that the prosecutor acted improperly, and that he did not receive adequate help from his attorney during the trial. The court agreed that the incest conviction should be reversed because it was based on the same act as the rape, which is not allowed by law. This meant Goldman was improperly punished for two things for doing one act, which is unfair. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Sodomy, stating that a jury could reasonably decide he was guilty based on the evidence presented. Goldman's claims about the prosecution and defense lawyer's conduct were reviewed, but the court found that the lawyers acted within their rights. The evidence of Goldman’s behavior after he was accused, which included uncomfortable actions in a police room, was allowed in the trial since it showed his possible guilt. In conclusion, while Goldman did not get relief for all his claims, the court recognized an important mistake about the incest charge and fixed it by not allowing that conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-942, Eric Josiah Mardis appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen and Engaging in a Pattern of Criminal Offenses in Two or More Counties. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mardis was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child and received very harsh sentences of 100 years for each of the first five counts and 2 years for the last count, which were to be served one after the other. He questioned the fairness of his trial by stating that the prosecution used information from his mental health records improperly. The court found that while the trial had some errors, they did not significantly harm the fairness of the trial regarding his guilt. However, these errors did affect how the jury decided on his punishment, leading to a modification of those sentences. In his appeal, Mardis raised several concerns, including that his long sentences were cruel and unusual since he was a minor when he committed the offenses. The court noted that he was not given a sentence of life without parole and would have a chance for parole after serving part of his sentence. This meant he had an opportunity for early release based on his behavior and rehabilitation. Mardis also questioned whether there was enough evidence to support his convictions and claimed that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the testimony of a physician’s associate was allowed. The court rejected these claims, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision and that the use of some statements for medical diagnosis purposes did not violate his rights. In summary, his convictions were upheld, but due to the mistakes made during the trial, Mardis's sentences were reduced to 50 years each for the first five counts. This means he would serve a total of 52 years with the last count included. The final decision reflected the need for a fair process while recognizing the severe nature of the crimes committed. Mardis's appeal was partially successful, leading to a lesser punishment than initially given, which was seen as a fair outcome given the legal issues at hand.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-374, Jerrell Otis Thomas appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Robbery with a Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm, but to reverse the conviction for Robbery with a Weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jerrell Otis Thomas was found guilty by a jury for three serious crimes. The main issue was whether he was being punished too harshly for his actions. He argued that he should not have been convicted for both Shooting with Intent to Kill and Robbery with a Weapon because they were connected, like two parts of the same event. The court agreed with him on this point and felt that, under the law, he should not be punished twice for what they saw as one act. Thomas also claimed that he did not get a fair trial because the public was kept out of the courtroom while a key witness testified. The court looked into this and decided that the closure was justified due to threats made against the witness, ensuring their safety. He further claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. After considering all the facts, the court found that his lawyer did their job okay, and there wasn't enough evidence to show he was harmed by their actions. Finally, the judge determined that the way Thomas's sentences were set to run (one after another) was acceptable, even though they reversed one of his convictions, meaning he would serve less time than originally planned for that charge. Overall, Thomas won on one point regarding his robbery conviction, meaning that part of the punishment was taken away, but his other convictions were upheld. The court’s decisions aimed to ensure no unfair punishment occurred while also maintaining the law's integrity.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-974, Donald Edward Tolliver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, requiring a new determination of the victim's losses. One judge dissented. Tolliver was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-five-year sentence, with thirty-two years suspended. He had to pay over $10,000 in restitution, which he appealed, arguing several points about his trial. He claimed the trial court made several errors. First, he believed the court should have instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses, like Assault and Battery, but the court noted that Tolliver had proclaimed his innocence and did not show he committed any lesser crime. Second, he argued the court should have included an instruction about flight, which might help explain his actions after the shooting. However, because he did not properly ask for this during the trial, the court ruled he could not bring this up on appeal. Third, he accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing this affected his chance for a fair trial. However, the court found that while some actions by the prosecution could be questionable, they didn't constitute an error that would change the outcome of the trial. In his fourth argument, Tolliver said the court didn't follow proper rules regarding restitution calculations. The appellate court agreed with this point, stating that the evidence did not clearly show the victim's actual losses. Fifth, he argued the thirty-five-year sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, finding the sentence appropriate given the crime. Finally, he claimed that all the errors combined took away his right to a fair trial, but the court noted there wasn’t enough evidence to support this claim either. Ultimately, while Tolliver's conviction and sentence were upheld, the restitution order was sent back to the lower court for further consideration of the victim's financial losses.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-500, Dale Lynn Taylor appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to fifteen years in prison. No judges dissented. Dale Lynn Taylor was put on trial and found guilty of Second Degree Rape after a jury deliberated on the evidence presented. He had a previous felony conviction from 1992, which the State tried to use to enhance his punishment. However, since the previous conviction was over ten years old, it was considered stale and should not have been used for increasing his sentence. The jury originally recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison. The court reviewed Taylor's claims of error, which included the improper use of the old conviction, the admission of certain evidence, and the actions of the prosecution during the trial. The court found that while some issues raised were valid, others were not significant enough to alter the outcome of the case. After looking closely at all the evidence, the court decided that Taylor's sentence should be reduced to fifteen years in prison. They believed this was a fair outcome considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the crime. Taylor's arguments about the trial process raised important points, but in the end, they did not change the decision about his guilt. The final outcome was that Taylor's conviction remained, but his punishment was adjusted to be more appropriate under the law. The court emphasized that even though there were problems, they did not warrant completely overturning the conviction. Therefore, he would still serve time but for a reduced period.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-524, Robert Dewayne Cox appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Cox's conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana should be reversed, but the other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented. Cox was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County. The jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence for the methamphetamine charge, one day in jail for marijuana possession, and five days for public intoxication. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cox raised several claims in his appeal. He argued that having two convictions for different drug possessions from the same incident was unfair and violated his protections against double punishment. The court found this claim valid and indicated it was a plain error, meaning it was obvious even though it was not raised during the trial. Next, Cox argued the law enforcement did not properly prove that the drugs taken from him were the same ones tested by the crime lab. The court found that he did not show this as an error as there was enough evidence to link the substances to the case. Cox also stated that the jury was influenced by evidence of other bad acts that should not have been admitted. However, the court decided that this evidence was relevant to the case and did not count as an error. Cox claimed that his attorney did not do a good job of defending him, especially regarding the issues he raised in his appeal. The court concluded that since they found a plain error regarding the possession charge, the claim about ineffective assistance was not necessary to address. Finally, Cox argued that the mistakes in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court determined that while there was a mistake in charging him for both drug possessions, it was an isolated incident and did not create a pattern of errors that would warrant a new trial. In summary, the court upheld Cox's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and public intoxication but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana because he should not have been punished twice for the same action. The case was sent back to the lower court for necessary actions related to this decision.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-286, Ketcher appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the $5000 fine associated with the felony offense. One judge dissented. Ketcher was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including eluding police, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and having improper vehicle equipment. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison and received various fines based on his convictions. The main point of his appeal was about the eluding charge, where he argued that the evidence was not strong enough to show he endangered others while trying to escape the police. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including video footage, demonstrated that Ketcher did endanger others. He ran stop signs and drove very fast through neighborhoods, even close to pedestrians. Therefore, the court felt that a reasonable person could find him guilty of the charge beyond doubt. Ketcher also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury about a lesser charge for eluding. However, the court stated that the evidence did not support this request, so they denied it. Additionally, the court acknowledged a mistake in how the jury was told about fines for the felony eluding charge. It should have been clear that the jury had the choice to impose a fine rather than it being mandatory. Because of this, they removed the $5000 fine from Ketcher's sentence. Regarding other claims of unfairness during the trial, the court found no serious problems that damaged Ketcher’s right to a fair trial. They noted that much of what the prosecutor said during the trial was based on evidence presented. Ketcher also claimed his attorney did not do a good job, but since the court found no serious errors during the trial, they did not agree with this claim. The final decision by the court was to uphold the prison sentences but to remove the fine, allowing them to issue their final ruling without more delays.