Federal Constitutions Archives

F-2018-691

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2019
Post category:F

The document you provided outlines a legal case involving Jose Santiago Hernandez, who had his suspended sentences revoked due to alleged perjury. Here’s a summary of the key points: 1. **Background**: Hernandez entered a guilty plea to charges of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy in January 2017, resulting in a ten-year sentence with the last five years suspended. 2. **Revocation**: The State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentences on the grounds that he committed perjury by providing false statements regarding his co-defendant's involvement in the robbery during court proceedings. 3. **Hearing**: A revocation hearing took place on December 19, 2018, where the judge found that Hernandez did not provide truthful testimony. The judge ruled in favor of the State's application to revoke his suspended sentences. 4. **Appeal**: Hernandez appealed the revocation, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence of perjury, violating his due process rights. 5. **Court's Decision**: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that violations of suspended sentences need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. 6. **Conclusion**: The revocation of Hernandez's suspended sentences was upheld. For any further inquiries or specific details about the case, feel free to ask!

F-2004-767

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

M-2003-450

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 19, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.