In OCCA case No. F-2007-856, Ricky Louis Hunter appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 and Unlawful Use of a Computer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count while dismissing the second count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-370, #Nicholson appealed his conviction for #Direct Contempt of Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm one count of contempt and reverse five counts. #One judge dissented. Jeremy Dion Nicholson was found in contempt of court during his co-defendant's trial. He received six citations, and each citation came with a six-month sentence in jail, which were to be served one after the other. Nicholson argued that being held in contempt violated his right to remain silent, as he was involved in another case that was still being appealed. He also said the judge acted improperly and that there was a mix of errors which caused him to not have a fair trial. The court explained that Nicholson had been granted immunity for his testimony, meaning his answers could not be used against him later. This immunity meant he was expected to testify and had lost his right to avoid incriminating himself in this situation. The court agreed that he would be held in contempt for refusing to testify, and canceled five of his six contempt convictions but kept one. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge made mistakes but noted that the judge's actions were aimed at making sure Nicholson was protected under the law. The judge didn't show any improper behavior in her conduct during the trial of the co-defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for one count of contempt but overturned the other five counts and instructed that those be dismissed. There was a disagreement among the judges, with one judge believing the judge had acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial figure, which could lead to problems in how justice was served.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-391, Steven Antonio Wooden appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Wooden's convictions, but modified his sentences from thirty years to twenty years each, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Two judges dissented regarding the reduction of the sentences. Mr. Wooden was found guilty in two separate robbery cases after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The trial took place on January 11th and 12th, 2005, and the jury set his punishment at thirty years for each robbery. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other, which made his total sentence more than fifty years. Mr. Wooden argued that his trial was unfair due to several errors, including the following points: 1. He believed that combining the two robbery cases into one trial hurt his chances for a fair trial. 2. He thought he was not tried by an unbiased judge, which he believed was a serious mistake and should grant him a new trial. 3. He said that evidence from phone calls he made from jail was unfair and did not help prove that he was guilty. 4. He argued that the police officer's comments about him being out of jail on the day of the robberies were misleading and not right. 5. He mentioned that it was wrong to bring up his silence after being arrested, which he said violated his rights. 6. He thought his jury should have been told about parole rules and how sentences are supposed to work. 7. Finally, he felt that all these problems together made his trial unfair. The court looked carefully at the whole case and all the arguments that Mr. Wooden made. They said that the joining of the two robbery cases did not harm his right to a fair trial. They noted that no significant prejudice from this decision had been proven. They also believed that the judge was not biased, but pointed out that the way the judge announced what would happen if Mr. Wooden chose a jury trial did not follow the rules properly. Specifically, the judge needed to think about whether Mr. Wooden should serve his sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. Though the court acknowledged that some errors occurred during the trial, they concluded that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case significantly. They found the mistakes regarding the sentence structure were serious enough to modify Mr. Wooden's total prison time. However, they decided that the robbery convictions were correct and would not be changed. In summary, Mr. Wooden's convictions remained in place, but his total prison time was lessened and the sentences would now be served at the same time.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-363, Adan Ramos, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force or Fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Ramos's right to a jury trial, which is a fundamental right. Ramos's other claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, exclusion of evidence, and interpreter issues became moot since the court ordered a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-907, David Wayne Robbins appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences to fifty years for each of the first two counts, which would be served one after the other. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-368, an individual appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes against his daughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Second Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, but reversed the conviction for Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented on the Forcible Sodomy count. Tommie Loyd Payne was charged with numerous sexual offenses in Muskogee County, with the jury acquitting him of 97 counts but convicting him on 4. The court sentenced him to a total of 70 years in prison, with some sentences to be served one after the other. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that the conviction for Forcible Sodomy violated double jeopardy because the jury instructions blended different elements of the crimes, which could have led to a wrongful conviction based on the same actions. However, the court found that the jury's understanding of the separate charges made this error negligible, so the convictions stood. He also contended that Lewd Molestation should not be punished because it was a lesser included offense of Rape by Instrumentation. The court agreed that both charges referred to the same act, which violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, resulting in the reversal of the conviction for Lewd Molestation. Finally, Payne pointed out that the trial court did not complete a pre-sentence investigation before sentencing, which was a mandatory requirement. However, the lack of this investigation was found to be a harmless error. Overall, the court upheld the serious convictions against Payne while addressing significant legal standards regarding double jeopardy and trial procedures.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1163, Christopher Ray Murphy appealed his conviction for four counts of indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. HC 2001-0440, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a sex offense. In a published decision, the court decided to grant extraordinary relief and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner, who was in prison for serious crimes, requested that he be allowed to receive good time credits that he felt were unfairly taken away. These credits could reduce his prison sentence. The problem arose from a requirement by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that inmates convicted of sex offenses must attend a treatment program. To join this program, inmates need to admit their guilt and provide personal information which could lead to further legal trouble. The petitioner argued that forcing him to admit to crimes he disagreed with violated his constitutional rights, specifically the right not to self-incriminate. Initially, the district court rejected the petitioner’s request for relief, stating he could not prove he would be released even if the credits were restored. The court found that the requirement to participate in the program was not only mandatory but also fair considering the law at that time. Moreover, the court dismissed the petitioner’s concern that these requirements amounted to unfair punishment, calling his claims frivolous. However, the petitioner took his complaint to the appeals court, where he argued that his situation was similar to another case from Kansas, where the courts agreed that inmates should not be forced to incriminate themselves in order to receive treatment. The appeals court acknowledged the need to further investigate this claim and ordered a hearing to gather more facts. During the hearing, the judge found that the DOC policy indeed put significant pressure on inmates to admit guilt, which violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The judge noted that the program's requirement to disclose past crimes, especially with potential consequences for refusing to do so, placed the inmates in a tough spot. The treatment primarily relied on inmates being honest about their past, which was considered coercive. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the findings of the district court judge. They stated that while the DOC has a right to rehabilitate inmates, the requirement for them to confess and disclose could not override their constitutional protections. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the petitioner, calling for necessary changes in the DOC's policy to ensure that inmates’ rights were not violated. Thus, the case highlighted a significant legal question about balancing the need for rehabilitation with protecting individual rights. The decision pointed out the necessity for the DOC to adjust its programs to eliminate any requirement that might force an inmate to self-incriminate, while still letting them work toward rehabilitation.
In OCCA case No. F 99-1293, #1 appealed his conviction for #4 counts of Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 counts were affirmed and #1 count was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. #0 dissented. #1, William Dean Carter, was found guilty in a jury trial after being accused of committing inappropriate acts against children. These acts happened a long time ago, but the case took a while to come to court. Carter was sentenced to several years in prison for his crimes. Carter claimed that his rights were violated during the trial. He said he should not have been charged because the time limit for bringing the case to court had passed. He also argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. The court looked closely at all the details of the case. They found that for two of the counts against Carter, the prosecution was valid, but for the other two, the time limit had expired. Because of this, those two counts were dismissed. The judges felt that the evidence against Carter was strong enough for some of the charges, even if there were some errors during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that two of Carter's convictions would stay, but the other two would be thrown out and should not continue in court.