Guilty Plea Archives - Page 10 of 10

F-2001-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

RE-2001-887

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.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.

C-2001-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-665, the petitioner appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who had been originally charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor child, reached a plea agreement where the charges were reduced. He pled guilty to the lesser offense of indecent exposure and received a 20-year prison sentence, which was the minimum possible. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he had been misled about the prison time he would actually serve. He argued that he was incorrectly informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence if he went to trial, which was not true for his case. The court found that the misinformation affected his decision to plead guilty even though he had also given contradictory statements during the hearings. The court ultimately ruled that because he was misinformed, his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. As a result, his conviction was vacated, and he was allowed to withdraw his plea.

C-2001-537

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-537, a person appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts while keeping the other counts affirmed. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The plea agreement allowed for a one-year suspended sentence if he completed a drug court program. However, he later violated the terms of this agreement by using drugs again and not attending the required sessions, leading to a longer sentence. After the court sentenced him to a total of 21 years in prison for the remaining counts, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued he did not fully understand what he was agreeing to, specifically the length of his sentences and various conditions. In reviewing the case, the court found a significant issue with the individual's dual convictions for possessing two kinds of drugs at the same time, which they ruled could violate double jeopardy rules. They agreed with part of his appeal and reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana, while affirming the other two convictions.

F-2002-324

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.

F-2000-998

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-998, Gene Doyle Smothermon appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent To Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction while modifying the sentence to 30 years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Gene Doyle Smothermon was found guilty of having methamphetamine and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. The jury first suggested he should go to prison for 75 years, but the judge decided he would serve 30 years instead. Smothermon appealed because he believed there were many mistakes made during his trial. Smothermon raised several issues during his appeal: 1. He argued that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and weak. 2. He said the trial court should have allowed his investigator to testify, claiming this took away his right to present his defense. 3. He felt the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. 4. He claimed the prosecutor made improper statements during the trial. 5. He thought his punishment was too harsh. 6. He believed that many errors added up to cause unfairness in his case. 7. Lastly, he asked the court to fix mistakes in the records about his guilty pleas for less serious charges. The court carefully looked over all the information from the trial, including evidence and arguments. They found that the trial did not make serious mistakes. They agreed that the evidence, including a dog alerting to drugs found in Smothermon's car, was relevant and did connect him to the case. They also ruled that not allowing the defense investigator to testify was reasonable since the investigator was disclosed too late in the trial process. They noted that while the prosecutor made some mistakes in his closing arguments, they were not serious enough to make the trial unfair. The most important point was that the judge was right to lower the original sentence from 75 years to 30 years, which they believed was more appropriate for the crime. In the end, the court confirmed Smothermon's conviction and changed his sentence to 30 years. They also decided that the trial court should correct the records to show the true details of his guilty plea for lesser charges. One judge did not agree with this decision.

C-2001-225

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-225, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a crime. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This means that the court found that the petitioner should have another chance to argue that his previous attorney did not help him as well as he should have. One judge dissented, meaning that they disagreed with the majority decision of the court.

C-2000-35

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-35, Anthony Dwayne Goshay appealed his conviction for escape from county jail and assault on a correctional officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Goshay's appeal and reverse the lower court's decision. One judge dissented. Goshay was in Comanche County District Court, where he pled guilty to two charges on October 7, 1999. At his sentencing on October 20, 1999, he tried to take back his guilty plea, but the judge did not allow it. Instead, Goshay was sentenced to five years for escape and three years for assault. After some time, his lawyer and then Goshay himself asked to withdraw the plea, but those requests were denied in December 1999. The case was sent back to the district court in August 2000 to check if Goshay was present when his request to withdraw the plea was denied. A new hearing took place on October 2, 2000, but the judge again said no to Goshay's request to change his plea. On appeal, Goshay argued that his plea wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured, that he was not informed about all the important parts of the charges he faced, and that his convictions were unfair because they involved double punishment. The court looked closely at these claims and agreed that Goshay's plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. It decided that when Goshay made his guilty plea, he was promised he could change his mind at sentencing without any negative consequences. However, when he did try to back out during sentencing, he wasn't given that chance. Therefore, the court found that Goshay didn't receive the deal he was promised. In conclusion, the OCCA reversed the original conviction and said further actions should follow that are consistent with their opinion, meaning Goshay would have the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, as originally agreed.

F 2000-0310

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.

RE 2000-0434

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 9, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.

RE 2000-0392

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 16, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.

RE-2000-841

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-841, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided that the appellant's revoked sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

C-1999-766

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 12, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-1999-766, Larnell Baucom, Jr. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's ruling and allow Baucom to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Baucom had pleaded guilty to the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and received a ten-year prison sentence along with a suspended fine. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that his attorney had given him incorrect advice regarding his potential sentence. The court looked at the case thoroughly, reviewing all records, transcripts, and Baucom's arguments. The main issue was whether the trial court was right to deny Baucom's request to withdraw his plea. The court found that Baucom’s attorney did not provide effective legal support, which led to Baucom entering his plea based on wrong information. Therefore, the court ruled that he should get the chance to withdraw his plea if he wants to. The dissenting opinion said that Baucom did not prove his plea was not knowingly made and that there was no strong evidence of improper advice from his lawyer. The dissenting judge argued that it was not the court's responsibility to act as Baucom's lawyer or raise issues that were not directly claimed by him.