Hearing Requirements Archives

F-2005-785

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

RE 2000-0688

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.