Fundamentally Fair Hearing Archives

RE-2015-180

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

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking his suspended sentence.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

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.