Fundamental Error

M-2003-495

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.

Continue ReadingM-2003-495

C 2002-1460

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2002-1460, Skinner appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to partially grant his appeal. The court found that the pleas of guilty to some charges were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Skinner was not properly advised about the punishment he could face, and the fines he received were too high according to the law. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas for certain counts and changed the fine on one of the counts to a correct amount. The court upheld the punishment for one count but denied the appeal for another. A judge dissented on some aspects of the case.

Continue ReadingC 2002-1460

F 2001-1506

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-1506

C-2002-652

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-652, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Second Degree Burglary, First Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, Larceny of an Automobile, and Robbery with a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal in part by modifying some of his sentences. However, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences for the other offenses. One judge dissented from the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2002-652

F-2001-916

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-916, Gilda Marie Schoonover appealed her conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gilda and her husband were charged with the murder of their adopted child, Benjamin, who was just over two years old. The trial took place with a jury, and both Gilda and her husband were found guilty. They were sentenced to life in prison based on the jury's recommendation. During the trial, there were several problems that Gilda highlighted as reasons for her appeal. First, she argued it was wrong for the jury to consider different ways to blame her. They were told that it was possible she either directly hurt the child or allowed her husband to hurt him. Gilda felt that allowing these different ideas confused the jury. She also pointed out that the court did not let the defense see all the evidence it needed, like a written statement from another person who might have helped their case. Furthermore, Gilda was unhappy about how the court allowed some information about past contacts with child services to be used against her. The jury couldn’t be sure which theory they believed—the one where Gilda hurt the child or the one where she let her husband hurt him. The court agreed that the evidence provided did not clearly show that she personally allowed the abuse or knew it was going to happen. Because of these issues, the court decided that Gilda deserved a new trial to ensure she had a fair chance to defend herself. In summary, the court found errors in the trial process, particularly in how the jury was instructed and the evidence presented. Gilda's conviction was overturned, and she was given another chance to have her case heard.

Continue ReadingF-2001-916

F-2001-936

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-936, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover and his wife, Gilda, were charged with causing the death of a child they were trying to adopt. The trial revealed that on the day of the incident, both parents were in different locations when the child suffered a fatal injury. They gave unclear accounts about the events leading to the child's death and did not witness the actual injury. The state accused the Schoonovers of child abuse, stating that they had been considering canceling the adoption due to the child’s behavior issues. During the trial, there was a significant focus on a cassette tape that John Schoonover had asked his daughter to keep, which he claimed would prove that Gilda was responsible. The trial court allowed the prosecutor to change the charges, permitting the jury to consider whether the couple committed the murder or simply allowed it to happen. The jury convicted both on the basis of this alternative theory. John Schoonover argued that the trial court made multiple errors, including allowing this change after the evidence was presented. The court found that the evidence did not support the theory that John Schoonover knowingly allowed child abuse to happen. There was no proof that he knew of any potential for harm or that he could have stopped it. Because the jury had to consider multiple theories in their decision without clear evidence supporting one over the others, the court decided it was impossible to determine how the jury reached its conclusion. The final decision was to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-936

F-2001-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-785, Sammy Dewain Haas appealed his conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sammy Dewain Haas faced serious charges for driving while drunk and for driving when his license was suspended. He went to trial in Beckham County, where a jury found him guilty. The punishment was set at ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the drunk driving charge, and one year and a $500 fine for the driving under suspension charge. The sentences were to be served at the same time. Haas raised several issues on appeal. First, he pointed out that the prosecutor wrongly argued that the jury should think about what he might do in the future instead of what he did this time. The court did not think this was a serious mistake that required a new trial. Second, he claimed that the jury should have been told about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired, but the court found that the evidence did not support that. Haas also said the judge should have given instructions about using circumstantial evidence, which is when a conclusion is drawn based on the surrounding facts instead of direct evidence. While the court agreed that the instructions should have been given, they ruled that this mistake didn't affect the overall outcome of the trial. Finally, the court ordered that the official record be changed to correctly state that Haas's sentences were to run together, not one after the other. In the end, the court upheld the trial’s decision, meaning Haas would remain convicted and serve his sentence as planned.

Continue ReadingF-2001-785

RE-2001-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-887

F-2000-483

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-483, Debra Gorrell appealed her conviction for several drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of Gorrell's convictions but affirmed the others. One judge dissented. Debra Gorrell was found guilty of crimes including unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and other drug-related charges. She was sentenced to a total of many years in prison. During her appeal, Gorrell raised several arguments against her convictions. Gorrell argued that the court shouldn't have allowed evidence about her past crimes. She also said she was punished too many times for the same actions and claimed that part of the law used against her was unfair. She disputed the evidence stating she had methamphetamine in front of a child, claimed the testimonies used against her weren't reliable, and said the jury wasn't properly instructed about the crimes. The court reviewed all arguments and found that most of Gorrell's claims did not hold up. They decided that the evidence against her was strong enough for the other convictions. However, they found that Gorrell's conviction for maintaining a dwelling for drug use was not fair, and this conviction was reversed. In the end, the court upheld her other convictions but ordered a new trial for the one related to maintaining a dwelling for drug use.

Continue ReadingF-2000-483

F 2000-1157

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.

Continue ReadingF 2000-1157

F-2000-1313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1313, Robert Guy Wisner appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for the conviction of attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of marijuana, but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, instructing to dismiss that count. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1313

F-2000-671

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2000-671