PR 2018-1203
OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…
F-2017-1031
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1031, a person appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Dakota Joe Spainhower was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his friend, who was a juvenile. The incident occurred after their shift at a local restaurant in July 2016. After receiving a ride home from the victim, Spainhower's mother noticed something strange outside and found a body next to a car, which belonged to the victim. Initially, Spainhower told his mother that the victim had tried to rob him and stabbed him first, prompting him to fight back and stab the victim multiple times. Evidence showed that Spainhower had blood on him and took the victim's keys after the incident. Spainhower's confession to the police was a crucial part of the trial. The court had to determine if this confession was made voluntarily and if he understood his rights when he waived them. There were questions regarding his mental health, education level, and the long duration of his questioning by police, all of which were argued to undermine the validity of his confession. However, the court found sufficient evidence that his confession was voluntary. The court also evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was enough to support the murder conviction. They determined that the evidence, including the victim's numerous injuries, was compelling enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spainhower was guilty of intent to kill. Spainhower raised concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court assessed these claims and found that any mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Spainhower argued that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel. However, the court determined that his counsel acted adequately throughout the trial. Finally, Spainhower claimed that the combination of all the errors he identified deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since no individual errors were found that warranted relief, the cumulative effect of claims also did not provide grounds for a new trial. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Spainhower, maintaining his conviction for first-degree murder with no opportunity for parole.
F-2018-56
In OCCA case No. F-2018-56, Garry Wayne Wilson appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. No one dissented. Garry Wayne Wilson was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County. He faced two charges: killing someone and having a gun when he wasn’t supposed to. The jury decided he should spend his life in prison for the murder and ten years for the gun charge, with both sentences running one after the other. Wilson raised several problems about his trial that he believed made it unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, such as changing the charges against him in a way that hurt his defense, not telling the jury the right instructions, allowing too many pictures of the victim that were too much to see, and that the prosecutor did things wrong during the trial. He also believed his lawyer didn’t help him enough. The court looked closely at Wilson’s complaints. First, they found that the change in the charges was allowed because it didn’t really change what he was being accused of. It was fair to change it based on the evidence that came out during the trial. Next, regarding jury instructions, the judges said they were given correctly. Even though Wilson claimed he should have received specific instructions about being angry, the judges said that because Wilson denied shooting the victim, he didn’t qualify for those instructions. Also, the jury did get to hear about similar lesser charges, which gave them options. About the photos shown in court, the judges found they were important for showing what happened to the victim. Even if there were many pictures, they all served a purpose and were not too repetitive. Regarding the claims of the prosecutor acting inappropriately, the court said that, despite Wilson's worries, the issues did not make the trial unfair. The judges assessed all the prosecutor's actions as a whole to decide if they were serious problems. They concluded that they were not. Wilson also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job. However, the judges commented that legal representatives have a wide range of actions they can take, and it’s not easy to prove they didn’t do their job well. They didn’t find any significant mistakes made by the lawyer that harmed Wilson’s case. Lastly, Wilson argued that all these issues combined made his trial unfair. The judges disagreed and said that since they found none of his claims were valid, there were no combined errors that would change the outcome either. In summary, the court affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence. They found no significant errors that would merit a new trial or a change in his punishment. The case concluded with the jury's decision being upheld.
F-2018-112
In OCCA case No. F-2018-112, Christopher Lewis Whinery appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Mr. Whinery was found guilty by a judge without a jury. The case took place in Creek County, where he was sentenced to life in prison and fined $500. His main argument was that the judge made a mistake by allowing his statements to the police to be used against him during the trial. He said that he was in custody and had not been told his rights, which needs to happen before police can question someone. However, the court looked at what happened and found that Mr. Whinery was not in custody when he spoke to the police. This means he wasn’t formally arrested, and his freedom wasn't limited like it would be if he were arrested. Because of this, the police did not need to read him his rights at that time. Since the court agreed that there was no error in allowing his statements, they decided to keep his conviction as is, meaning he will remain in prison for life.
F-2018-103
In OCCA case No. F-2018-103, the appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, heat of passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. David Wayne Ellis was charged with first degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This happened after a trial in which the jury decided on a sentence of life imprisonment. The judge took into account the time Ellis had already served in jail. Ellis raised several issues in his appeal: 1. He argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. The court looked at the evidence and decided that the jury had enough information to find that Ellis was not acting in self-defense. The court noted that Ellis had confronted the victim with a knife and had made threats, showing he was the aggressor. 2. Ellis claimed that the prosecutor made a mistake by calling the decedent's death a murder during the trial. He believed this was wrong because it was up to the jury to decide on the nature of the death. However, the court found that since the jury had been instructed correctly and had not convicted him of murder but rather manslaughter, this was not a mistake that would affect the trial's fairness. 3. Ellis argued that he did not receive effective legal help during the trial. The court considered this argument but found that his lawyer’s performance did not fall below what is acceptable. Moreover, since there was no error established in the previous points of appeal, this claim also failed. 4. Finally, he objected to the admission of a photograph of the decedent that he felt was unfairly prejudicial. The court determined that the photo was allowed under the law because it provided context about the victim and was relevant to the trial. They did not find any error in allowing it. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and determined that there were no significant mistakes made during the trial that would change the outcome.
F-2017-1191
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1191, Leroy Edward Gilbert, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One justice dissented. The case involved the murder of Erma Jean Goodou, who was killed in 1994. For many years, the murderer remained unknown. Goodou was found dead in her home, showing signs of a violent struggle. There were indications that someone entered through a window, attacked her, and fled. Despite extensive investigation, her murder stayed unsolved for almost twenty years. In 2013, some of the evidence was retested, which produced DNA that identified Gilbert as the suspect. He had previously denied knowing Goodou despite having been a high school acquaintance. His fingerprints were also found at the crime scene. During the trial, Gilbert testified, claiming they had a secret relationship and tried to explain the presence of his DNA and prints, but the evidence was compelling against him. Appellant's arguments in the appeal included claims of improper jury instructions regarding the 85% Rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that while there were errors in jury instructions, specifically about the 85% Rule not being applicable to his case, these did not affect his substantial rights or the outcome. The comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were also deemed not to have harmed Gilbert's defense. Ultimately, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the impact of those errors, the court upheld the trial's decision, maintaining Gilbert's conviction for First Degree Murder and sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.
F-2017-1167
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1167, Revival Aso Pogi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Revival Aso Pogi was convicted of murdering Steven Qualls in Oklahoma City in April 2014. Qualls was found dead in his home, and the scene was very bloody. An autopsy showed he had been beaten and stabbed over fifty times. Pogi was arrested after his wallet and bloody handprints were found at the crime scene. During police questioning, Pogi initially denied any involvement but later admitted to killing Qualls, stating he acted in self-defense after being held captive. Pogi’s appeal raised several arguments. He claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court made mistakes. He argued that the jury should have been given instructions on a lesser charge of manslaughter, that his statements to police were made under duress, and that evidence of the victim's past conduct was improperly excluded. Pogi also challenged the use of a graphic photograph of the victim and claimed that the cumulative impact of all errors warranted a new trial. The court rejected Pogi's claims. They found that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that Pogi intentionally killed Qualls and that his self-defense claim wasn’t justified. They ruled that the trial court made appropriate decisions about jury instructions and evidence. The court noted that even if there were errors, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court upheld Pogi's conviction for First Degree Murder and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.
F-2017-1042
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.
F-2017-1189
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1189, Lawrence Raymond Silver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Solicitation for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the district court. One judge dissented. The case started when Silver was tried and found guilty of trying to get someone to commit murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for thirty-seven years. During the trial, Silver raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor said some unfair things that hurt his chances for a fair trial. However, the court found that these comments were not serious enough to make the trial unfair, and there was no error. Silver also thought that he should not have received three years of supervision after leaving prison since the law said this only applied to specific crimes. The court agreed that there was an error, but the trial judge later fixed it, reducing the supervision time to nine months to a year. Because this was corrected, Silver did not need any more relief on this issue. Additionally, Silver claimed that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the trial. The court explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Silver needed to prove that if the lawyer had done better, the result of the trial would have been different. Since the court didn't find any of the previous claims valid, they decided that his lawyer's work couldn't be judged as ineffective. Finally, Silver said that even if no single issue mattered on its own, the overall mistakes during the trial combined to deny him a fair trial. The court ruled that without any valid individual mistakes, his claim for cumulative errors was groundless. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and sentence against Silver, and his request for further testing of his lawyer's assistance was denied.
F-2017-1103
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1103, the appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. Jose Jonathan Rivera-Chavez was convicted of killing Wanda Cooper at a hotel. On December 27, 2016, Cooper went to the hotel office pleading for help while covered in blood. She collapsed shortly after and died from her injuries. Witnesses saw Rivera-Chavez trying to open car doors nearby after the incident. The police found him on the run and apprehended him with help from a police dog. Evidence showed blood on his clothes matched Cooper's. During the trial, Rivera-Chavez claimed he was under the influence of drugs and did not intend to kill Cooper. He admitted to stabbing her multiple times with a knife after becoming paranoid during a drug high. Despite his defense, the court noted that his actions and demeanor suggested he was not severely intoxicated. One key issue in the appeal was whether the court allowed evidence of Rivera-Chavez's silence after being read his rights, which he claimed violated his rights. The court found that this evidence was used properly to address his claim of voluntary intoxication and did not unfairly suggest guilt. The court concluded that even if there had been some error in admitting the evidence, it was harmless because ample evidence showed Rivera-Chavez's intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were ultimately upheld.
F-2017-532
In OCCA case No. F-2017-532, Shane Allen Vanderpool appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Vanderpool shot and killed Blaine Wells in an incident that was determined to be a case of mistaken identity following an encounter at an intersection in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Vanderpool did not know Wells, and the circumstances of the shooting involved a misunderstanding about the identities of the people involved. Vanderpool was later connected to the crime through evidence that included phone records and testimonies that linked him to the location of the shooting. Witnesses to the shooting were able to identify Vanderpool as the shooter, and forensic evidence further implicated him. Vanderpool was charged with First Degree Murder and other related offenses, ultimately leading to a conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder charge. During the appeal, Vanderpool raised several issues regarding the trial court's admission of evidence relating to his character and gang affiliations. He claimed that such evidence denied him a fair trial. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was closely connected to the events of the shooting. Vanderpool also challenged certain photographic evidence presented at trial, arguing it was prejudicial and lacked relevance. The court, however, concluded that these photographs had significant probative value and did not substantially outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. Another argument Vanderpool made was about the unconstitutionality of a statute regarding the sentencing of noncapital murder defendants, which he felt limited his ability to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. The court held that the statute was constitutional and provided due process protections. Furthermore, Vanderpool contended that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain objections during trial. The court noted that his counsel's performance did not result in prejudice that would impact the trial's outcome; therefore, this claim was also denied. Finally, Vanderpool argued that the cumulative effect of errors during his trial denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that as they found no substantial errors, this claim also failed. In conclusion, the court affirmed Vanderpool's convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The opinions aligned with the decisions made regarding the evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. One judge expressed a differing view but ultimately the majority ruled in favor of upholding the lower court's decision.
F-2017-762
In OCCA case No. F-2017-762, Kendell Paul Sparrow appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Malice Aforethought). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Sparrow was convicted of a serious crime, and his appeal included two main issues. First, he argued that the trial should not have included the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness because he believed it went against his right to confront witnesses. Second, he contended that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for murder. During the trial, the court allowed a witness’s earlier testimony to be used because that witness was unavailable to testify in person. Sparrow challenged this, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found no error because the State had made reasonable efforts to bring the witness to trial. The court also determined that Sparrow had a chance to question the witness during the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the admission of the testimony was upheld. As for the evidence presented against Sparrow, the court examined whether the State proved he was guilty of murder. The law requires that to convict someone of first-degree murder, it must be shown they unlawfully caused the death of another with intent or malice. The court looked at all the evidence in favor of the State and concluded that reasonable jurors could find Sparrow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court decided that Sparrow's appeal did not provide grounds for reversing his conviction. Therefore, the original sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.
F-2017-008
In OCCA case No. F-2017-08, John Kyle Crandall appealed his conviction for first degree murder, concealing stolen property, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm but reversed the conviction for concealing stolen property. One judge dissented.
S-2017-986
In OCCA case No. S-2017-986, Simms appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling to exclude certain evidence. One judge dissented. The case involved Simms being charged with two counts of First Degree Murder. Before the trial started, he asked the court to keep out certain video and photographs from the trial. He felt these images were too gruesome and could unfairly influence the jury against him. The judge held a hearing to discuss this issue. During the hearing, the judge decided to exclude the officer’s body camera video, which showed the crime scene where one of the victims was struggling for her life. The judge felt the video was unnecessarily graphic and did not provide any new important information that could not be shown in a different, less disturbing way. The State of Oklahoma disagreed with this decision and appealed, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the video to be shown in court. However, after reviewing the case, the court upheld the trial judge's decision. They concluded that there was no misuse of discretion when the judge decided to keep the video out, as it could be too disturbing for the jury and did not add significant information to the case. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, meaning that Simms' conviction stood as initially determined. The judges also noted that one judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority agreed with the ruling to keep the gruesome video out of the trial.
F-2016-519
In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.
F-2016-82
In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.
S-2016-332
In OCCA case No. S-2016-332, the defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to deliver a narcotic controlled dangerous substance and first degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which indicated that the defendants were not part of the conspiracy at the time of the victim's death. One judge dissented. The case began when a grand jury accused several people, including the defendants, of being involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs, which ultimately led to the death of Jennifer McNulty. She died from an overdose of oxycodone. After a preliminary hearing, a judge decided that two defendants, Miers and Gregoire, should not be charged with murder because they had withdrawn from the conspiracy before McNulty’s death. The state did not agree with this decision and appealed. They argued that the judge made a mistake in saying Miers and Gregoire had ended their part in the conspiracy. However, the court reviewed the evidence and found that both defendants had indeed separated themselves from the drug conspiracy before the incident occurred, so they couldn’t be held responsible for the murder. The court confirmed that Gregoire was removed from the drug operation because of her problems with addiction, causing others not to want her in the conspiracy anymore. Also, Miers had moved to another state and had stopped working with the main person involved in drug sales before the death happened. After considering everything, the court decided that the earlier ruling was fair and didn't show an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Miers and Gregoire could not be charged with first degree murder because they had taken themselves out of the conspiracy before the victim's death. The dissenting judge felt that the court made an error and that the defendants should still face charges.
PC-2015-6
In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.
F-2014-698
In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.
S-2013-509
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.
S-2013-510
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.
F-2013-1129
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.
F-2012-567
In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.
F-2010-203
In OCCA case No. F-2010-203, Travis Lee Danley appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his conviction for Larceny from a House to Petit Larceny but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Danley was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Arson, Larceny from a House, and Larceny of an Automobile, and sentenced to life in prison without parole on the murder counts, among other sentences. The events occurred on August 31, 2008, when Danley shot two victims in a home after an argument, attempted to cover up the crime, and fled the scene with stolen items. During his trial, Danley raised several issues on appeal, including that the district court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about his probation, whether there was enough evidence for the larceny conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error from the trial. The court found that the mention of Danley being on probation did not prejudice the trial significantly and upheld the district court's ruling. However, it agreed with Danley that the evidence did not support a conviction for Larceny from a House, as he was a guest in the home and did not unlawfully enter. Therefore, his charge was modified to Petit Larceny due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen items. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also considered, with the court noting that the prosecutor's questions and comments did not render the trial unfair. Danley’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected, as the jury instructions were deemed adequate at the time of the trial. Lastly, the court ruled that even if there were errors during the trial, they did not cumulatively harm Danley's right to a fair trial. In summary, the court affirmed most of the trial's decisions but modified one conviction due to insufficient evidence, affirming the principle that defendants deserve fair treatment under the law.
F-2009-404
In OCCA Case No. F-2009-404, Kassie Lakei Bills appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Kassie Lakei Bills was found guilty of murder after a jury trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced her to Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole. Bills raised several complaints about how the trial was conducted. She argued that the trial court, which is responsible for making sure the trial runs smoothly, acted improperly during jury selection (called voir dire) by making comments that could have influenced the jurors. She said the court restricted her ability to question potential jurors about an important issue in her case: insanity. Further, Bills claimed that the trial court did not allow the jury to consider lesser offenses that might have been more appropriate, and that it should not have allowed certain evidence that was not relevant to the case. She felt her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, and there were too many mistakes made during the trial that affected her right to a fair trial. One key issue was the trial judge’s comments during jury selection. The judge told jurors that they should come to a decision quickly and warned them against being hard-headed. Bills argued that these comments pressured jurors to reach a verdict even if they had honest disagreements about the evidence. The court pointed out that such comments could be seen as coercive, leading to a situation where jurors would not feel free to express their true opinions. The court agreed with Bills that the trial judge’s comments were improper and could have influenced the jury's actions unfairly, which led to the decision to reverse her conviction and order a new trial. Since the case was sent back for a new trial, the court did not need to discuss the other complaints Bills raised about her trial or her request for a hearing regarding her lawyer's performance. In conclusion, Bills' conviction was overturned, and she was granted a new beginning in court, where she may have a chance to present her case fairly.