Felony Offense Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2008-97

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 24, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-97, the appellant appealed her conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kristie K. Thompson, was found guilty by a jury for not providing proper medical care for her child’s rash. The case was heard in the Stephens County District Court, where she was sentenced to six months in jail. She appealed the conviction for several reasons, including claims that the instructions given to the jury were incorrect and that she should have been given a chance for a lesser charge. After carefully reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court found that there was not enough proof to show that she willfully neglected the medical needs of her child. They concluded that no reasonable person could have decided she was guilty based on the evidence. Therefore, they reversed her conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. Since they found a major error related to the evidence, the court decided not to address the other claims made by the appellant. The court issued their decision based on the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

RE-2006-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

F 2000-292

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 24, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-292, Joe Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence for the weapon charge. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a felony. At his trial, he was sentenced to 30 years for the drug charge and 20 years for the weapon charge. He raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that the court did not correctly explain the state’s need to prove his past convictions. Second, he claimed the jury was misinformed about the punishment ranges for the second charge. Third, he said the jury was not correctly told about the punishments for the drug offense. The court looked carefully at all the evidence and arguments presented. They decided that the way the jury was instructed about the drug charges was correct. However, they agreed that the sentence for the weapon charge should be less severe based on their interpretations of the law, setting it to the minimum of two years instead of the original twenty. One judge disagreed with the decision to lessen the sentence for the weapon charge, feeling that the jury’s sentence should be upheld. The final conclusion was that while the main conviction was upheld, the penalty for possession of a weapon was reduced.