In OCCA case No. C-2009-69, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Resisting an Officer, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-127, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including False Declaration of Ownership in Pawn, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and various Computer Crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court program but vacated one conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer since the charges had been dismissed before the time of termination. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-1233, Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's ruling and dismiss the State's application to revoke Holden's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holden had originally entered a guilty plea and was given a long sentence with part of it suspended. However, he was accused of violating probation by contacting the victim while in prison. The rules say that a hearing to revoke a suspended sentence needs to happen within twenty days after the guilty plea. When the second hearing wasn't conducted on time, Holden argued that the court didn't have the power to proceed. The court ultimately agreed with Holden, ruling that the process was not followed correctly, and because of this, they did not have the authority to go forward with the revocation. Therefore, the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the application.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-273, Charles Bert Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Jones the ability to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Jones entered a guilty plea for serious charges in the Oklahoma County court. The judge gave him life sentences for some counts and a ten-year sentence for another, but his requests to change this were denied. The main issue was whether he made his guilty plea knowingly, which means he understood what he was doing. The court found that there was enough evidence to say that Jones was misled by his attorney, who suggested he would get a better sentence than what the judge actually imposed. Because of this situation, the court ruled that Jones should be allowed to undo his plea and have a new trial. They ordered his case to be handled by a different judge to avoid any unfairness. The dissenting judge felt there was no strong evidence to grant Jones's request and believed the original decision should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-963, Richard Lloyd VanMeter appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor-Second Offense and multiple new charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the DUI/Drug Court Program and vacate his convictions, instructing to reinstate him in the program based on the conditions of his plea agreement. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-1009, Richardson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Richardson was entitled to a hearing on his Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C 2008-448, Franklin Savoy Combs appealed his conviction for grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Combs to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Combs was charged with grand larceny after two checks were stolen while he was visiting someone's home. He entered an Alford plea, meaning he accepted a punishment without admitting guilt, thinking it would be in his best interest. Combs was sentenced to five years in prison, with four years of that time suspended. Later, Combs sent a letter to the court saying he wanted to change his plea because he believed he was not guilty since he did not actually steal anything. The court agreed to a hearing where Combs explained that he didn't commit the crime. However, the court decided not to let him withdraw his plea. Combs then appealed this decision and raised two main points: he didn't understand what he was doing when he entered his plea, and there wasn't enough evidence to support his plea. The appeals court reviewed the case and decided that the original court made mistakes. They noted that there was not enough factual basis for Combs to plead guilty. In fact, they found that he might actually be innocent of the charges based on the facts presented. The appeals court said that Combs should be allowed to take back his plea and sent the case back to the lower court for further actions based on their ruling. Overall, the court agreed that Combs did not enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and they concluded their findings by granting him the chance to withdraw his Alford plea.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence from the District Court in Case No. CF-2004-31 and remand it back for further proceedings, specifically to determine the unserved portion of Long's sentence. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in CF-2006-90, which was for Burglary in the Second Degree. The court clarified that a prior felony conviction enhanced Long's sentence for the burglary conviction. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-1154, Rayshun Carlie Mullins appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including rape and robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Mullins could withdraw his guilty pleas to many of the charges because he was not informed that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. One judge dissented, arguing that the court should not vacate the pleas since Mullins knew he faced a long prison term when he entered his guilty pleas.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1322, a person appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's revocation of his suspended sentence and instructed the District Court to vacate the sentence imposed. One judge dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea in 2001 for First Degree Rape. He was originally sentenced to seven years in prison, with three years served and the rest suspended, meaning he would be on probation under certain conditions. In 2006, the state filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he did not register as a sex offender, did not pay his probation fees, and did not pay fines. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence entirely. The person argued that his sentence was illegal because he was treated as a youthful offender, which is for younger people who commit crimes. He maintained that he should not have been sent to an adult prison. The court found that he had been correctly charged as a youthful offender and that the state did not follow proper procedures to change his status. The court also ruled that the lower court committed an error by sentencing him as an adult instead of as a youthful offender, which was against the law. Since he was now older, they could not send him back for new sentencing as a youthful offender, and the original sentence needed to be canceled. In summary, the appellate court acted to correct the mistakes made in the original sentencing, showing that legal procedures must be followed when sentencing individuals, especially those classified as youthful offenders.
In OCCA case No. M-2005-375, the appellant appealed his conviction for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Failing to Register a Vehicle, and Failing to Carry Security Verification. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Failing to Carry valid Security Verification and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Failing to Register a Vehicle was also reversed with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involves an appellant who was convicted after a jury trial in Love County. He was sentenced to a total of over two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for damages. Appellant raised several issues on appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, including allowing improper questioning about a previously withdrawn guilty plea and imposing an illegal punishment. The trial started with the appellant being arrested for multiple offenses related to driving and vehicle registration. At first, he agreed to plead guilty but decided to withdraw that plea after getting legal help. During his trial, the prosecution wrongly questioned him about that guilty plea, which was acknowledged as an error by both sides. This error was seen as significant enough to potentially affect the jury's decision, therefore, the court believed a new trial was necessary. For the offense of Failing to Register a Vehicle, the court found that the punishment given was not within the law's limits. Furthermore, the state agreed that the appellant should not have been charged under Oklahoma law since the vehicle was bought out of state. Thus, the conviction for this offense was also overturned. In conclusion, the court acted to protect the fairness of the trial process by ordering new trials for some convictions and dismissing others. The decision addressed important legal standards and ensured that justice was served correctly.
In OCCA case No. SR-2007-134, Patricia Campbell appealed her conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the evidence, meaning it found the evidence insufficient to support the charge of Child Neglect. The court also ruled that the trial court had the authority to allow Campbell to plead to the lesser crime of Second Degree Manslaughter. No judge dissented in this opinion.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-50, the petitioner appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented. The petitioner was originally charged in the Oklahoma County District Court with unlawful possession of a handgun based on previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each case. These sentences were set to run at the same time, which is known as concurrently. Later, the petitioner asked to withdraw his guilty plea. He believed he did not receive proper legal help during the hearing for this request because his lawyer had a conflict of interest. This means that the lawyer might have been more focused on their own issues instead of helping the petitioner. Even though the petitioner did not raise the problem of the conflict during the hearing, the court found that the situation affected the performance of his lawyer. Because of this, the court decided that the petitioner had been denied his right to effective legal assistance. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, which is a formal request to review the decision, and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. At this new hearing, the petitioner will have the chance to be represented by a lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.
In OCCA case No. C-06-1079, Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided that Harris was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of his case, which was the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that since Harris' attorney was not present at the hearing, he did not have proper legal representation. This decision led to a determination that Harris should be given another chance to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, this time with independent legal counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-1192, Chad Fourkiller appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and feloniously possessing a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on the application to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Fourkiller had pleaded guilty to three charges, which included trying to escape from a police officer and having illegal weapons. He was sentenced to a total of time in prison, depending on whether he completed a program called Drug Court. After his participation in Drug Court ended, he was formally sentenced. Later, Fourkiller wanted to change his guilty plea and claimed his lawyer did not explain things properly to him. The court did not allow him to withdraw his plea at first. However, during a follow-up hearing, Fourkiller’s lawyer ended up testifying against him. This created a problem since a lawyer should not represent a client and then testify against them in the same case. The court found that Fourkiller did not receive proper legal help, and because of this, they agreed to his request for a new hearing to discuss his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The other arguments Fourkiller made in his appeal about double jeopardy and errors in his sentencing were found to not need a decision since the first issue was enough to allow for a new hearing.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. C 2005-608, Ricky Allen Rinker appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Rinker's request to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Ricky Allen Rinker made pleas of guilty and nolo contendere for several counts of crimes against children. He was sentenced to a total of over forty years in prison. After some time, Rinker wanted to take back his pleas, saying they were not made knowingly or voluntarily. He believed he was not properly informed about the possible sentences and his eligibility for parole. The court agreed that he had not been properly informed about important rules related to his sentence, particularly that he would need to serve 85% of his time before being eligible for parole. Since this was a serious issue, the court allowed him to withdraw his pleas and overturned his sentence. Some judges thought that Rinker should have to provide more proof that he did not understand the rules concerning his pleas. They believed he had not shown enough evidence that he should be allowed to take back his pleas simply because no official record of his plea was made. However, in the end, the majority ruled in favor of Rinker, allowing him a chance to re-do his plea with all the proper information.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.
In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.