Fundamental Error

F-2018-136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2018-136

F-2016-549

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2016-549

F-2016-30

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-30, Ladarius Burnell Kelly appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the fines associated with the charges. One judge dissented regarding the change in fines. Ladarius Burnell Kelly was charged and found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon. He received a punishment of 18 years in prison along with a $2,500 fine for the robbery and 2 years in prison with a $2,500 fine for the assault. The sentences were to be served one after the other. Kelly appealed, raising several issues. First, he argued that the witnesses who identified him were not reliable, which he believed violated his rights. However, the court found that the methods used for identification were not overly suggestive and did not mislead the jury. Therefore, his claim was denied. Next, Kelly challenged the evidence presented against him for the assault charge. The court looked at the evidence favorably for the prosecution and determined there was enough proof to support the conviction. The testimony showed that Kelly had threatened to shoot a victim, which the jury could reasonably interpret as an intent to harm, so this argument was also denied. He also argued that he had not received a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, the court found that any alleged missteps by the prosecutor didn't significantly impact the fairness of the trial. Because of this, this claim was denied as well. Importantly, Kelly had a point regarding the fines. The court found that the jury was wrongly instructed about the mandatory fines for the charges. They decided to correct this by changing the fine for the assault count to $0 and reducing the fine for the robbery charge to $2,000. Kelly also believed that his lawyer did not do their job effectively, but the court ruled that his claims did not show that the outcome of the trial would have changed if his lawyer had acted differently. In summary, the court upheld Kelly's convictions and changed the financial penalties, showing that while he did not win the major points of his appeal, he was granted some relief on the fines imposed.

Continue ReadingF-2016-30

F 2012-1131

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-1131, Antonio Herman Cervantes appealed his conviction for sixty-nine counts of child sexual abuse and one count of child physical abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court while ordering the correction of the sentencing documentation. One judge dissented. Cervantes was found guilty of serious crimes against children and received a significant prison sentence of forty years for each count. The court decided that some counts would be served concurrently, while others would be served consecutively. This meant that Cervantes would spend a long time in prison before being eligible for parole. Cervantes raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the jury instructions at his trial were not correct, but the court found that these instructions were adequate since there were no objections made at the trial. Therefore, the court only looked for plain errors and did not find any. Next, Cervantes claimed that many of his convictions should not have happened because they involved double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence showed these were separate acts that could be considered individual offenses. Cervantes also thought that the trial judge did not treat him fairly. Yet, since there were no objections to any of the judge's comments during the trial, the court reviewed these comments and concluded that they did not show bias against Cervantes. He further claimed that he was denied a speedy trial. The court reviewed the reasons for trial delays, noting that they mostly stemmed from issues with his defense attorneys and were not caused by the state. The court decided that the delays were not a violation of his rights because he did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the wait. Cervantes also argued that there were mistakes in how his previous convictions were presented during the trial, but he did not raise objections when the evidence was introduced, so the court did not find any reversible error. Another point he raised was that the written judgment did not match what was said in court regarding his sentence. The court agreed that his sentencing documents needed to be corrected to reflect the proper orders given during the trial. Cervantes also suggested that his lawyer did not provide effective assistance because he failed to complain about certain aspects during the trial. However, the court found that there was no evidence of how this alleged absence of support affected the outcome of his case. He also noted instances of what he thought was misconduct by the prosecution but concluded that overall, he was not denied a fair trial due to these points. The court found that his sentences were appropriate and did not see any major errors that would warrant changing its earlier decisions. Finally, the court ruled that there was no cumulative effect of errors since no individual error was found to be significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, the court affirmed the conviction while ordering the necessary corrections in the documentation of the sentence.

Continue ReadingF 2012-1131

F-2012-170

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-170, Darnell Lamar Wright appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, False Personation, and Assault while Masked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation but reversed the conviction for Assault while Masked. One judge dissented. The case began when Wright was tried by a jury and found guilty on multiple counts. The jury recommended a life sentence for the robbery charge, four years for false personation, and twenty years for assault while masked. The judge sentenced him accordingly, ordering the sentences to run one after another. Wright raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made errors that affected the fairness of his trial. One main concern was about how the court answered a jury question regarding parole eligibility for some of the charges. Wright claimed that the response was confusing and led to misunderstandings about how long he might serve. He also contended that there wasn't enough proof for the false personation charge, and he believed the law about that charge was unclear and unfair. Additionally, he argued that being convicted of both robbery with a firearm and assault while masked for the same act was not right, claiming it violated the principle against double jeopardy. Wright thought that evidence shown during the trial, which wasn’t directly related to him or the robbery, shouldn't have been allowed. He felt that this hurt his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he claimed that many small errors during the trial added up to deny him a fair chance. After reviewing Wright's arguments and the entire case, the court found that there was a valid point in Wright's argument about the assault charge. The court agreed that the attack with a weapon and the robbery were part of the same event and therefore should not both result in separate punishments. However, they found no substantial errors with the other appeals he raised. The judges stated that the original instructions the jury received were clear and that any confusion they had didn’t change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the law concerning false personation was not vague and that the evidence against Wright was sufficient for the charges. Thus, while the court upheld the convictions for robbery and false personation, they overturned Wright’s conviction for assault while masked, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. The decision meant that Wright would have to serve time for the robbery and false personation but not for the assault.

Continue ReadingF-2012-170

F-2012-545

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-545, Jimmy Dale Stone appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy was found guilty by a jury on several counts of lewd molestation involving children. He was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison, with some of the sentences running one after the other and one running at the same time as another. He had to serve a majority of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. On appeal, Jimmy raised several important points. He argued that the judge didn’t explain all the important parts of the law about lewd molestation to the jury. He believed the evidence used against him wasn’t enough to prove he had done anything wrong. He claimed that the jury was influenced by people who talked about the case before it started. He felt he was not given a fair chance at trial because of things the prosecutor said about the victims. Also, he said he should have had money for an expert witness to help prove his side. He believed that presenting other crimes as evidence was unfair. Finally, he argued that all these mistakes together affected the fairness of his trial. The main issue that the court found was a big mistake in how the jury was instructed about the law. There are specific things that must be proven to convict someone of lewd molestation. To be found guilty, it must be shown that the defendant knowingly did something wrong and that they intended to do it. This was not explained correctly to the jury during the trial. The court found that some parts of the legal instructions given did not include important elements needed to prove the case. Although there was an argument about whether this error was harmful, the court decided it was serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial. They concluded that omitting the requirement that the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally could have changed how the jury viewed the evidence and questions raised during the trial. Since the evidence against him was not overwhelming enough to guarantee he was guilty regardless of these instructions, the decision was made to reverse the conviction. Because of this significant error, the court said that Jimmy should get a new trial where the jury would be properly instructed on the law. The other issues he raised in his appeal were not discussed because the main error already warranted a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-545

C-2012-686

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2012-686

F-2012-168

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-168, Tommie Joe Moore appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Moore's convictions but modified his fine on one count. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty after a jury trial and received a sentence of twenty years for Distribution and a $25,000 fine, ten years for Possession and a $7,500 fine, and twenty-five years for Trafficking with another $25,000 fine. The sentences for the Distribution and Possession counts were ordered to be served at the same time, but the Trafficking sentence was to be served afterward. Moore raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the fine for the Distribution count was too high and that it should be corrected. He claimed that the jury should have been instructed about a lesser charge related to Possession and that he did not get a fair trial because of mistakes made during the trial, including some comments made by the prosecution. He also stated that the sentences he received were too harsh and should not have been served one after another, but at the same time. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that the fine for the Distribution count was indeed too high and changed it to $10,000. However, the court found that there was no need for a lesser charge instruction, and that the prosecution's actions did not affect the fairness of Moore's trial. The sentences given to Moore were within legal limits, and the court did not think they were excessively harsh. In the end, the court affirmed Moore's convictions but made a change to reduce the fine in one of the counts. This meant that while the convictions stood, Moore would not have to pay the original high fine, and he could continue to serve his sentences as ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2012-168

F-2009-794

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-794, Allen Eugene Bratcher appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to thirty years, although they affirmed his conviction. One judge dissented from the decision to reduce the sentence, stating that there was no error in how the prosecutor conducted the trial. Bratcher was found guilty in Garfield County and originally sentenced to seventy years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including concerns about his sentence being too harsh and the conduct of the prosecutor. The court found that while some of the prosecutor's statements were improper, the conviction did not need to be reversed. The judges determined that the long sentence shocked their sense of justice, especially given the circumstances of the case and Bratcher's lack of prior accusations. They reviewed the prosecutor's comments, especially those appealing to the jury's sympathy, and decided that these remarks contributed to the excessive original sentence. The court also considered Bratcher's claims regarding his lawyer's performance, but they ruled that the trial lawyer's decisions were part of their strategy. Ultimately, while the court affirmed Bratcher's conviction, they thought the sentence should be reduced to thirty years instead of seventy. The decision allowed the judges to agree on many points but showed differences regarding what the final sentence should be.

Continue ReadingF-2009-794

C-2010-287

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.

Continue ReadingC-2010-287

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

F-2008-1014

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1014

C-2008-682

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-682, Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, eluding an officer, and driving under suspension. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal and deny the rest. One judge dissented. Williams had entered a nolo contendere plea, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted punishment for the crimes charged. He was sentenced to a total of 51 years in prison and fines for the various offenses. Williams later tried to withdraw his plea, claiming he had not been given the right information about his punishment and that his lawyer had not helped him properly. The court looked closely at Williams’s arguments. They agreed that he did not know he could get jail time for driving under suspension, so they decided to cancel that one-year sentence. However, they found that his pleas for the other charges were made with understanding, and he couldn't show that he would have acted differently if he had known the correct punishments for the other counts. The judges also believed that the prison sentences were not too harsh, and Williams didn’t prove that his lawyer had done a poor job. Since they found that all but one of Williams's claims were not valid, they denied those parts of the appeal. As a result, the court ordered the lower court to fix a small mistake in the paperwork regarding Williams’s plea and the specific laws he was charged with breaking. The end decision allowed Williams to be resentenced for one specific charge and made sure all details were correct in the official records.

Continue ReadingC-2008-682

F-2006-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-780

F-2006-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-114

PC 2006-0638

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

Continue ReadingPC 2006-0638

M 2005-0404

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0404

F-2005-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1176

F-2004-1271

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1271, Darrell Antonio Cheadle appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences were modified to life in prison for each count, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. One judge dissented, stating that the delay before the trial was prejudicial to the defendant's defense, but agreed that the evidence of guilt was very strong.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1271

F 2004-773

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.

Continue ReadingF 2004-773

M 2004-0742

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.

Continue ReadingM 2004-0742

F-2003-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes against minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One member of the court dissented regarding the sentences. The appellant was found guilty of many crimes, including possession of obscene material involving minors and various forms of sexual assault and exploitation. The jury decided on significant punishments, including life imprisonment for some counts and substantial fines. The sentences were ordered to run one after the other, meaning the appellant would serve a long time in prison without the chance to have some time overlap. The appellant raised several issues during the appeal. He argued that his trial was unfair for various reasons, such as hearsay evidence being allowed and prejudicial comments from the prosecutor. He also claimed that he was charged with crimes that were not consistent with the law at the time of the offenses, notably regarding the sexual exploitation charge. The court evaluated each point raised by the appellant. They found that while there were errors in how the trial was handled, not all of them affected the final outcome significantly. Some errors were considered harmless or did not warrant a change in the verdict. The court agreed that some charges were problematic, particularly that of sexual exploitation, which the court decided to reverse and dismiss. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction for the possession charge should reflect a different statute and that some sentences exceeded legal limits. The court modified these sentences appropriately and affirmed most of the other convictions. One judge did not agree with the decision to have all sentences run consecutively and believed they should run together instead, which would allow for a potentially shorter total time in prison. This disagreement highlights the differing opinions within the court regarding the severity and application of sentences. In summary, the case involved serious crimes with significant legal discussion around the fairness of the trial and the appropriateness of the resulting sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2003-802

M-2002-1195

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingM-2002-1195

F 2003-1018

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1018, Orcutt appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second and Subsequent Offense. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Orcutt was found guilty in a jury trial of several charges linked to driving while drunk. This happened in Creek County after a trial that lasted a few days in August 2001. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison and pay a big fine for his most serious crime, as well as some smaller fines for the other charges. Orcutt claimed that there were mistakes made during his trial. He said that the jury was not given the right instructions about how they should decide on the punishment. He also argued that the prosecution acted unfairly and that the jury should have been kept together without being allowed to leave during the trial. After looking at all the evidence from the trial and listening to the arguments made by both sides, the court said that Orcutt's convictions would stand. However, they agreed that the sentence needed to be changed. The jury had been instructed incorrectly about the possible punishments for Orcutt's offenses. The law said that they could not set his punishment to include both treatment and prison time at the same time. While his prison time of ten years and the fine were kept in place, the part of the punishment that required treatment and use of an ignition device was removed. The court found that some of Orcutt's other arguments about unfairness during the trial did not hold up, and no changes were made based on those claims. In conclusion, the court affirmed the main conviction but modified part of the punishment, removing some of the conditions, while agreeing on the primary penalties.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1018

F-2002-1351

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett 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 judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1351