First Degree Murder

F-2008-434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-434, Dusty Ray McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Dusty Ray McGee was found guilty of murdering a homeless man named John Seeley after a brutal attack. The attack happened when McGee and others returned to an abandoned apartment complex where Seeley was staying. They confronted him because they were stealing metal from the site. During this attack, McGee, along with his accomplices, kicked and hit Seeley multiple times with different objects. After the assault, they took pictures of the injured Seeley, who was still alive at that time. McGee was arrested a few days later and admitted to being part of the attack but claimed he didn't intend to kill Seeley. He mentioned that he wanted to call an ambulance afterward but was threatened by one of his accomplices. During McGee's trial, there were several issues. The jury asked many questions that showed they were confused about what made a crime first or second-degree murder and how sentencing worked. The judge didn’t handle these questions properly and didn’t bring the jurors back to discuss their worries in front of everyone. This made it hard for the jury to understand everything they needed to know to make a fair decision. The court acknowledged that the improper handling of the jury's questions likely impacted McGee's rights to a fair trial. Because of these errors, the court reversed McGee's conviction and ordered a new trial, suggesting that the previous trial did not follow the required legal procedures properly.

Continue ReadingF-2008-434

F-2008-433

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-433, #x appealed his conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years. #n dissented. Vicki Leigh Chiles was the owner of a day care and was taking care of several children, including a two-year-old boy named Joshua Minton. One day, Joshua didn't want to take his afternoon nap and was being noisy. To handle this, Chiles put him in a separate bedroom by himself and covered his mouth and hands with masking tape. Tragically, while he was alone, Joshua vomited and suffocated. When officials arrived at the day care for a surprise inspection, they found Chiles trying to give Joshua CPR. Unfortunately, he was not breathing, and emergency responders could not save him. The medical examiner determined that Joshua died due to lack of oxygen caused by the masking tape blocking his mouth after he vomited. During the trial, Chiles wanted the jury to be told that her actions could be considered an accident and asked for instructions about discipline. However, the court denied these requests. The court determined that it was clear her actions were not done with usual caution, which meant they couldn't qualify as an accident under the law. Chiles also argued that the jury should have been allowed to consider a lesser charge of second-degree murder. However, the court explained that because Joshua was a child and Chiles’ actions were considered unreasonable force, this charge was not available. Additionally, Chiles felt it was a mistake that the jury wasn't properly informed about what life without parole meant. The jury had confusion about the sentencing options available to them regarding her punishment. Due to this confusion, the court decided to change her sentence to allow for the possibility of parole after thirty years, instead of life without parole. In conclusion, while Chiles' conviction was upheld, her punishment was modified to allow for the possibility of parole, recognizing the jury's confusion about the sentencing terms.

Continue ReadingF-2008-433

S-2009-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-363, Heather Renee Trask appealed her conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that prevented the State from arguing alternative theories of guilt against her. One judge dissented. Heather Trask was arrested and charged with very serious crimes after her baby daughter, Mackenzie, died. The baby had injuries that suggested she had been hurt badly. Evidence from doctors showed that the baby died from head injuries caused by blunt force trauma. When the baby was found, she was not breathing and could not be revived. During the trial of Heather's husband, he testified about the night of the baby’s incident. Heather left for work after 7:00 p.m. on the night of the tragedy, and her husband was the only adult with the baby after that time. The experts in the trial said the baby must have suffered severe injuries shortly before she died, but they could not pinpoint the exact moment it happened. The district court listened to the arguments and decided that there was enough evidence to show that Heather’s husband was likely the one who caused the fatal injuries. Because of this, the court ruled that the State could not present alternative theories that might shift blame to Heather. After hearing everything, the appeals court agreed with the district court's decision. They determined that the lower court did not make a mistake by blocking the State from using other theories to argue guilt. Therefore, the ruling that prevented the State from pursuing various angles was upheld, affirming the decision made by the district court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-363

S-2008-761

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-761, Robert Lee Smallen appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's suppression order of his statements made during a police interview. Smallen's refusal to waive his rights to silence and counsel was upheld, and he was found not to have voluntarily waived those rights. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2008-761

J-2008-800

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-800, M.H. appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that M.H. should be certified to stand trial as a Youthful Offender. The State of Oklahoma dissented. M.H. was charged with a serious crime when he was just shy of 15 years old. He wanted to be treated as a juvenile instead of as an adult. M.H.'s request was initially denied, but later, a judge decided that he could be treated as a Youthful Offender. The State disagreed and appealed the decision, arguing several points. The State thought the trial court should have given more importance to certain laws about how young people are treated in court. They also believed that M.H. didn't prove he could be helped in a juvenile system, and they claimed it was a mistake to put the burden of proof on them. In court, the judges looked at different kinds of evidence, including expert opinions that suggested M.H. could benefit from treatment that the Youthful Offender System offered. After reviewing everything, the judges decided that the trial court did not make a mistake, and they agreed that M.H. could be certified as a Youthful Offender. The final outcome was that M.H. would not automatically be treated as an adult for the serious crime he was accused of, and he was given a chance for treatment instead. This decision was seen as correct by the judges who agreed, while the dissenting opinion did not support this view.

Continue ReadingJ-2008-800

F-2007-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-336, Michelle Ann Barry appealed her conviction for First-Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Michelle Ann Barry was found guilty of murdering her infant daughter, Andrea Heath. The jury decided on a life sentence for Barry. Barry argued that the evidence against her was not strong enough to prove she was guilty. Her main point was that the evidence only suggested she might be guilty but did not rule out other possibilities of who could have harmed her child. The court explained that it had to look at the evidence in a way that favored the state. They concluded that the jury could have believed Barry was the one who harmed her daughter. This was largely because the only other person awake during the incident was Barry's five-year-old son, who was too small to cause the injuries. Barry also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job defending her in court. To win this point, she had to show that her lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes changed the outcome of her case. She pointed out that her lawyer failed to object to certain evidence that could have hurt her chances in the trial, like bad character evidence about her lifestyle and drug use. The court agreed with Barry that her lawyer's performance was lacking. They noted that her lawyer didn’t challenge negative testimony that could mislead the jury, and importantly, did not find experts to counter the claims made about her son’s physical inability to cause the injuries. Due to the many mistakes made by her lawyer during the trial, the court felt that Barry's conviction couldn’t stand. They reversed her conviction which means she would have a chance at a new trial to present her case again. One judge dissented, believing that the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2007-336

F-2006-469

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-469, Ricky Dale Hester appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, Conspiracy, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court affirmed his convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the kidnapping conviction. Hester was found guilty after a series of serious crimes. The events began when he, along with co-defendant Carl Myers, targeted Richard Hooks. They lured Hooks to a vacant house under false pretenses, where they planned to rob him. Hooks was beaten, stabbed multiple times, and then his body was moved to a garage that was set on fire. The jury sentenced Hester to life in prison without parole for the murder, and significant prison terms for the other counts. During the trial, various pieces of evidence were presented, including confessions made by Hester. However, he raised concerns about certain jury instructions and the admission of evidence. Hester argued that a specific instruction given to the jury about co-conspirator liability was incorrect, as it could lead the jury to presume guilt simply because he was part of a conspiracy. The court found that the jury was properly instructed on the law, and that the evidence presented showed Hester's active involvement in the crimes. He also challenged the trial court’s failure to provide instructions regarding the need for corroboration of confessions and accomplice testimony. The court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Hester’s confessions and that any omission in instructions did not impact the trial's fairness. Hester claimed that the admission of statements made by his co-defendant during the conspiracy was improper and that his statements to his partner were protected by spousal privilege. The court disagreed, finding that the trial had properly handled those matters and that the evidence substantiating the crimes was strong. Despite Hester's arguments, the court determined that the evidence was enough to support the convictions for murder, arson, conspiracy, and robbery, finding he played a crucial role in the criminal acts committed. However, due to a lack of evidence showing an intent to extort while holding Hooks against his will, the kidnapping conviction was reversed. In the end, while Hester's more serious convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged flaws in the evidence related to the kidnapping charge, leading to that particular conviction being dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2006-469

F-2006-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1055

F-2006-63

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2006-63

F-2006-352

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2006-352

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527

F-2004-1188

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1188, Daniel Allen Moore appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing due to a jury instruction error. One judge dissented. On June 9, 2003, Daniel Allen Moore shot 24-year-old Garade Jean Girsback in front of a mobile home where she was babysitting. Girsback was related to Moore's wife and had often lived with their family. That evening, Moore hosted a barbecue and was drinking. Witnesses heard him express anger towards Girsback and make threats about killing her. After becoming upset during their conversation, Moore accidentally fired his gun, hitting Girsback. Moore and his wife left without trying to help, and he disposed of the gun. Later, he told a neighbor it was an accident and claimed he only meant to scare Girsback. The main question during the trial was whether Moore had intended to kill Girsback or whether her death was due to recklessness or negligence. The court found that there was an error because the jury was not properly informed about the punishment options for first-degree murder, specifically failing to instruct that life with the possibility of parole was an option. The state agreed this instruction was missed, but they argued it did not affect the outcome because the defense had mentioned the options during closing arguments. The court decided that the jury's confusion could have influenced their decision, especially since they only deliberated briefly before returning a verdict and sentencing Moore to life without parole. Because of this, the case was sent back for a new sentencing hearing with the correct instructions provided to the jury. Additionally, the court addressed other claims by Moore, like the admission of his statements to police. It concluded these statements were allowed for impeachment purposes and did not violate his rights, as they were spontaneous comments. The defendant also argued there was insufficient evidence and that various errors during trial warranted a different outcome, but the court found that while there were errors, they did not combine to affect the fairness of the trial significantly. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but required that the sentencing be done again with proper jury instructions about the punishments available to them.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1188

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F 2005-603

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.

Continue ReadingF 2005-603

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582

J-2005-549

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-549, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the previous ruling and remand the case for a new certification hearing. One judge dissented. The case involved a fourteen-year-old who was charged as an adult with murder. The court first evaluated whether the appellant was competent to stand trial. Initially, he was found incompetent but later deemed competent after receiving training and treatment. The appellant sought to be classified as a youthful offender or juvenile instead of being tried as an adult. During the certification hearing, the appellant's attorney did not present any evidence to support this request. The court determined that the attorney failed to provide adequate representation by not investigating or suggesting experts until after the state had already presented its case. As a result, the court found that the appellant's rights were violated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court ruled that the appellant should receive a new hearing with proper legal support, including expert witnesses, to help his argument for being treated as a juvenile or youthful offender. The court emphasized the importance of moving quickly on the case due to delays that had previously occurred.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-549

J-2004-1117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-1117, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the appellant's request to be certified as a Youthful Offender but reversed the decision regarding the Assault charges, allowing those to be tried as a Youthful Offender. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as an adult with serious crimes, including murder. The appellant wanted to be treated as a Youthful Offender, which would mean he could receive rehabilitation instead of severe punishment. A special judge conducted hearings to decide if the appellant could be certified as a Youthful Offender, meaning he would be tried in a different system designed for young people. During the hearings, expert witnesses gave differing opinions about whether the appellant could be helped and rehabilitated if treated as a Youthful Offender. One expert believed the chances were good, while others thought the appellant needed more time to be rehabilitated. Based on all the information and expert opinions, the judge decided not to certify the appellant as a Youthful Offender and instead required him to be tried as an adult for the murder charge. On appeal, the appellant argued three main points: first, that the judge made a mistake by not certifying him as a Youthful Offender, second, that the judge should have removed himself from the case, and third, that he should not have been charged as an adult for the Assault with Intent to Kill counts since those should be treated as Youthful Offender crimes. The court looked at the evidence presented in the trial, including testimonies from experts and details of the appellant's life. The conclusion was that the judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding the appellant should be tried as an adult for the murder charge. However, the court did agree with the appellant concerning the Assault with Intent to Kill charges; since he was between 15 and 17 and those charges are typically handled differently, the court ordered that he be processed as a Youthful Offender for those counts. In the end, the court upheld the decision regarding the murder charge but reversed the decision on the Assault with Intent to Kill charges, indicating that the appropriate course was for those to be treated under the Youthful Offender system.

Continue ReadingJ-2004-1117

F-2004-184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-184, Kenneth Kelmer Jackson appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First-Degree Murder and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Accessory After the Fact but reversed the conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Kenneth was found guilty of helping someone after a murder had taken place and for hiding stolen items. The jury said he should go to prison for 14 years for the murder accessory charge and 5 years for the second charge, which would be served one after the other. On appeal, Kenneth argued that he should not be punished for both crimes since they came from the same act. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed the second conviction. Though they looked at his other claims about the trial not being fair, they decided they did not change the outcome of the case. In the end, the court said he could remain guilty of being an accessory to murder, but the charge regarding hiding stolen property was removed. One judge disagreed with part of this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2004-184

F-2003-1252

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1252

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196

F 2003-189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-189, James Dean Meadows 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. James Dean Meadows was found guilty of First Degree Murder by a jury. The trial took place in Oklahoma City from February 10 to 18, 2003. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for his crime. After being sentenced on February 21, 2003, Meadows appealed, bringing up five issues he believed were wrong with the trial. One of the key issues was about how his videotaped statement to the police was collected. Meadows argued that the police violated his rights by not properly informing him of his right to remain silent before they questioned him. He claimed that he was not voluntarily giving his statement, as he was taken from his home by police with guns drawn, and they did not tell him he was under arrest at the time. The police later interviewed him at their station, where they pressured him to admit his involvement in the crime. The court found that Meadows was indeed not free to leave when the police took him from his home, which meant that he was effectively under arrest without being formally informed. Because of this illegal seizure, the court ruled that his confession to the police could not be used as evidence against him. The court stated that such a confession was obtained without the rights requiring a formal warning being given to Meadows. Since the court decided that Meadow's confession was not admissible, the judgment against him was reversed, meaning he would have to be tried again. Because of this decision, the other issues raised in the appeal were not considered. In summary, the court determined that James Dean Meadows should have a new trial because the way the police obtained his confession was illegal and violated his rights.

Continue ReadingF 2003-189