In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-51, Wilkes appealed his conviction for second-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition, allowing Wilkes to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Darren Casey Wilkes had originally entered a no contest plea to second-degree rape but later sought to change that plea after not being accepted into a special program meant for young adults. This program was key to his decision to plead no contest. When he was denied entry into that program, he believed he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the conditions he agreed to were not fulfilled. The court reviewed the case and found that Wilkes’s plea was based on an agreement that included eligibility for the Delayed Sentencing Program. The problem arose from incorrect paperwork that included charges that were supposed to be dropped. Since this error affected Wilkes's eligibility and the terms of his plea, the court determined that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Throughout the process, it was clear that Wilkes did not admit guilt but entered his plea with the expectation of receiving certain benefits. Instead of receiving those benefits, he was sentenced to ten years in prison without the opportunity to participate in the program. The court concluded that the right remedy was to allow Wilkes to withdraw his plea and return to where he was before his plea was entered.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-648, the appellant appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appellant should be given the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-765, Polk appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Child Sexual Abuse, First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Kidnapping, and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal in part by reversing and dismissing the conviction for Lewd Molestation but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA case No. RE 2010-0600, Beau Ashley Kifer appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for two of the counts but reversed the revocation for the other two counts because the court did not have the authority to act on those counts since the sentences had already expired. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019 and RE-2009-1020, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the full revocation of his seven-year suspended sentences to a three-year revocation with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and received a suspended sentence. Later, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes. The judge found enough evidence to revoke his entire suspended sentence, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that a small amount of marijuana found in a car he was driving was not enough to prove he controlled it because it was not his car. He also claimed that revoking his entire sentence was too harsh and should be changed. However, the court upheld the judge's finding that the appellant indeed had control over the marijuana since he was driving the car alone and had acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia in the car. The court found merit in the appellant's argument about the harshness of the punishment because the reasons for revoking the full sentence were incorrect. The judge had based his decision on prior allegations that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny during the revocation hearing. The violations were also deemed minor and were not even prosecuted. In the end, the court decided to cut the original seven-year full revocation down to three years while keeping four years suspended, demonstrating that the punishment still reflected the violations but was fairer given the circumstances.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-210, Eric Anthony Damon appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a new hearing, allowing Damon to appoint new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Eric Anthony Damon faced serious charges, and he decided to enter a guilty plea without fully understanding all the details. After entering the plea, he felt that his defense lawyer did not help him properly, especially during the trial. He thought this was unfair and wrote to ask the court if he could change his plea. The court discussed whether Damon should get a new lawyer to help him withdraw his guilty plea. When someone says their lawyer didn’t help them well, the law usually says they should have a different lawyer to make sure everything is alright. The court realized that it can be really tricky when the same lawyer is trying to help with the plea withdrawal while being accused of not doing a good job. Damon had reasons to believe his plea wasn’t fair. During the trial, he had trouble with getting some witnesses to show up. He felt forced to plead guilty since his lawyer could not call certain key witnesses who might have helped him. The court didn’t want to decide if his plea was valid right away. Instead, they thought it would be best to let Damon have a new lawyer represent him in this important matter. In summary, the court agreed with Damon and said he should have a chance to explain his situation better with new legal support. They ordered this to be done and made sure Damon had the right to defend himself with a lawyer who could deal with his concerns about his earlier representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-617, Christopher Overby appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when Overby pleaded guilty to having a firearm while he was supposed to be under supervision. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with some of that time being suspended. After some time, Overby wanted to change his plea, so he filed a motion to withdraw it. He felt that he did not get proper help from his lawyer during this process. The court looked at Overby's case and determined that there was a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer. Because of this conflict, the court found that Overby did not get the effective help he was entitled to, especially when it came to his request to withdraw his plea. This situation meant he deserved a new hearing with a different lawyer who could fully represent his interests without a conflict. In conclusion, the court decided that Overby should have another chance to present his case for changing his plea. Thus, the decision was made to give him a new hearing to ensure that he had the right kind of support during this important process.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-1001, Sedrick Moltke Frierson appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of six and one-half years of his nine and one-half year suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Appellant entered a guilty plea for delivering controlled substances and was given a suspended sentence in 2007. This meant he wouldn’t have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. Unfortunately, he broke those rules by using drugs, committing more crimes, and not paying required fees or attending counseling. The state of Oklahoma requested that his suspended sentences be revoked because he didn’t follow the conditions of his probation. A hearing was held to look into this matter, and the judge decided that Appellant had indeed breached his probation conditions. So, he decided to revoke a big portion of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant raised two main points in his appeal. He argued the judge's decision was not fair and that it didn’t help him get better. He also claimed some costs should be removed from the written order, saying they were not part of the original agreement. The court explained that when reviewing a revocation, they could only look at whether probation rules were broken and decide on the sentence. The judge’s original decision to revoke the sentence was affirmed because the Appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake about some of the conditions in the written order regarding supervision. They said that the written order needed to be updated to reflect that Appellant’s remaining term of supervision should not require him to have any supervision, as the original ruling suggested. Overall, while the revocation was upheld, it was determined that the written decision needed to change to make sure there was clarity about the conditions of the remaining term.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-410, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case revolved around the petitioner who had pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine. He had a plea deal where he was supposed to receive a five-year sentence, but ultimately, he was given a ten-year sentence instead. After his sentencing, the petitioner believed that the judge did not follow the plea agreement correctly and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion, which the petitioner argued was unfair. He raised several concerns, including that there was no clear reason for his guilty plea, that he might not have been competent to enter the plea, and that he didn’t receive proper help from his lawyer. He also claimed the sentence and other penalties were too harsh. After reviewing everything, the OCCA found that there should have been a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea. They ordered the trial court to have a hearing where the petitioner could present his case and have a lawyer help him. The hearing needed to happen within 45 days, and if the motion was denied, the court was to send the details to the OCCA, where the petitioner could appeal if he wished. In summary, the court decided that the petitioner deserved another chance to explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea, and a proper hearing should take place to address those issues.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-17, Olindia Toann Vaughn appealed her conviction for Attempted Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her request to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Olindia Toann Vaughn pleaded guilty to attempting to rob someone with a weapon in the District Court of Tulsa County. She had an agreement with the court and was given a 15-year prison sentence that would run at the same time as another sentence she had. Later, Vaughn wanted to take back her guilty plea and asked the court to let her do it, but her request was denied after a hearing. Vaughn then filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is a request for the court to review her case. She also asked to add more information to her appeal and wanted a hearing to talk about her claims regarding the assistance of her lawyer when she tried to withdraw her plea. The court agreed to look at her additional information and set a hearing to explore specific questions about whether her lawyer gave her inadequate help. During the hearing, it was established that the lawyers who helped Vaughn when she wanted to withdraw her plea did not do a good job. They did not visit her beforehand to discuss her claims, did not investigate her confusion and mental health issues, and did not question her about how her health could affect her plea. As a result of these findings, the trial court decided that Vaughn had not received the proper assistance she needed from her lawyer during the plea withdrawal hearing. After reviewing the information, the court granted Vaughn's petition and allowed her to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County for her to formally withdraw her plea and for further proceedings. The court recognized that it is important for everyone to have help from a competent lawyer, especially when they want to change their plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.