In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1177, Ford appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacate the sentencing portion, ordering that a new sentencing order not exceed the original sentence. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1039, Earnest Toby Bearshead appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm but reversed his conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Bearshead was found guilty of two crimes: Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. The jury decided he should go to prison for nine years for the robbery and five years for the false personation. The sentences would be served one after the other. Bearshead did not argue against the robbery conviction but did challenge the false personation conviction based on three main issues. First, Bearshead claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed false personation. The law says that to be guilty of false personation, a person has to pretend to be someone else and do something that could cause that person to face legal issues or gain some benefit. Bearshead argued that since a video of him talking to the police was not officially accepted as evidence, he could not be said to have assumed another person's identity. Despite this claim, the court found that Bearshead had indeed provided evidence of using a false name when talking to the police. A detective testified that Bearshead initially said his name was “Oscar” and later corrected it to “Toby.” The detective had noted this on a form, showing that Bearshead tried to lie about his identity. The second point Bearshead raised was that even if he did use a false name, he did not do anything to get someone else in trouble, as there were no legal issues connected to the name Oscar Bearshead. The State argued he would have benefitted in some way, such as avoiding responsibility for the robbery. However, there was no evidence that showed Bearshead actually gained anything from pretending to be Oscar. He still faced the charges and was found guilty of the robbery. The court pointed out that Bearshead's jury was not instructed about the possibility of benefiting from using a false name, which was necessary for proving false personation in this case. Without clear evidence that he gained any benefits from the impersonation, the court decided the State did not meet the burden of proving all parts of the crime. As a result, the court reversed Bearshead's conviction for False Personation and ordered it to be dismissed. However, his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm stood, and he would still serve the sentence related to that crime. The decision led to one judge expressing a different opinion from the others.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-167, Bryan Decheveria Aragon appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit a felony, burglary in the first degree, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of Aragon's convictions but reversed others. One judge dissented. Aragon was found guilty of several serious charges, including robbery, assault, and kidnapping, after a jury trial in the District Court of Cleveland County. The jury handed down various sentences, adding up to a long term in prison. Aragon argued that errors occurred during his trial, including the prosecution calling co-defendants who refused to testify, which he claimed violated his rights. He also pointed out concerns about the prosecutor’s conduct and whether he faced multiple punishments for the same criminal act. The court found that the prosecutor’s decision to call the co-defendants did not require a reversal. Even though the co-defendants didn’t answer every question, they provided some responses and were available for cross-examination. Therefore, this did not infringe upon Aragon’s rights. The court also ruled that any claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct did not significantly impact Aragon's fair trial. However, the court acknowledged that Aragon’s conviction for possessing a firearm during a felony had to be dismissed, as it did not comply with legal standards. The kidnapping charge was also reversed because it arose from the same act as the robbery, which meant that it violated rules against double punishment. On the other hand, the charges for robbery and assault were allowed to stand since they were considered separate actions. In summary, the decision affirmed most of the judgment and sentences but reversed those related to kidnapping and possession of a firearm.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-684, Harold Robert Walker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs (Second Offense), Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana) (Second Offense), and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Walker's participation in the Drug Court program, but it remanded the case to correct sentences that exceeded the maximum punishment allowed by law. One justice dissented on the issue of resentencing.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-530, Jacinda Simone Osborne appealed her conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to Second Degree Robbery. No one dissented. Osborne was found guilty of robbing someone in Tulsa County. The jury said she should serve fifteen years in prison and pay a $5000 fine. She felt that the trial did not go well for her. She raised three main points that she thought were errors. First, she believed the court should have explained to the jury what serious bodily injury meant. Second, she thought the jury should have been given the option to consider a lesser crime, Second Degree Robbery. Third, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the serious charge of First Degree Robbery. The court reviewed everything carefully. They looked at the facts of the case and the laws. They agreed with Osborne on her third point. Even though the victim was hurt during the robbery, the proof did not show that the robbery met the higher standard needed for First Degree Robbery. There were no serious injuries or threats that would elevate the crime from Second to First Degree. So, the court changed her conviction to Second Degree Robbery, which is a lesser charge. The court said her original sentence would stay the same. This means that while the serious charge was changed, she would still serve fifteen years in prison and pay the fine. Since they found merit in her third point, they did not need to decide on the first two points she raised. The conclusion was that Osborne's conviction was modified, but the punishment was upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-260, Ronnie Lamonte Lister appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, but reversed the conviction for Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.