Final Judgment Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2015-672

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 15, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

RE-2015-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of the case: The appellant, after pleading guilty to Rape in the First Degree, was sentenced to twelve years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions, including registering as a sex offender. Later, the State alleged that the appellant violated his probation by committing a new crime in Michigan, specifically being a felon in possession of a firearm. When the appellant was brought back from Michigan, a hearing took place about whether he had indeed violated his probation. During this hearing, the State presented various documents and testimony to support their claims, but these did not meet the legal requirements. They had included some documents from Michigan that were not certified and did not prove that a final judgment had been made regarding the alleged new crime. The court found that the State did not provide enough competent evidence to support their claim that the appellant had committed a new crime. The judges noted that the State must strictly prove a new offense for revocation of a suspended sentence. Since the State did not prove that the judgment from Michigan was final, the court agreed that there was an error. As a result, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further actions as needed. The court did not need to consider the other issues raised since the lack of evidence was sufficient to decide the appeal in favor of the appellant.

S-2013-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

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.

S-2013-509

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.

RE-2012-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.

RE 2012-0601

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 4, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.

F 2010-1191

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 30, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1191, Mark A. Sanders appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and carrying a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented.

F-2000-998

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-998, Gene Doyle Smothermon appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent To Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction while modifying the sentence to 30 years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Gene Doyle Smothermon was found guilty of having methamphetamine and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. The jury first suggested he should go to prison for 75 years, but the judge decided he would serve 30 years instead. Smothermon appealed because he believed there were many mistakes made during his trial. Smothermon raised several issues during his appeal: 1. He argued that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and weak. 2. He said the trial court should have allowed his investigator to testify, claiming this took away his right to present his defense. 3. He felt the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. 4. He claimed the prosecutor made improper statements during the trial. 5. He thought his punishment was too harsh. 6. He believed that many errors added up to cause unfairness in his case. 7. Lastly, he asked the court to fix mistakes in the records about his guilty pleas for less serious charges. The court carefully looked over all the information from the trial, including evidence and arguments. They found that the trial did not make serious mistakes. They agreed that the evidence, including a dog alerting to drugs found in Smothermon's car, was relevant and did connect him to the case. They also ruled that not allowing the defense investigator to testify was reasonable since the investigator was disclosed too late in the trial process. They noted that while the prosecutor made some mistakes in his closing arguments, they were not serious enough to make the trial unfair. The most important point was that the judge was right to lower the original sentence from 75 years to 30 years, which they believed was more appropriate for the crime. In the end, the court confirmed Smothermon's conviction and changed his sentence to 30 years. They also decided that the trial court should correct the records to show the true details of his guilty plea for lesser charges. One judge did not agree with this decision.

RE 2000-0392

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 16, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.