In OCCA case No. C-2003-356, Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and granted his writ for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas. One judge dissented, arguing that the motion to withdraw was filed too late and should be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649 and RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation conditions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence; however, it instructed the lower court to make a correction regarding the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case started back in 1996 when the appellant took a plea deal for a charge related to pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended while he was on probation. However, by 1996, five years of this probation was revoked due to several violations. In 2000, the state accused the appellant of more violations, including failing to report to his probation officer, moving without notice, and using marijuana. The court initially delayed proceedings, offering a chance for the appellant to meet specific conditions like paying fees and performing community service, which if completed, would see the revocation dismissed. Later in June 2000, the appellant pleaded guilty to another charge related to neglecting to provide for a child, receiving another suspended sentence. Following this, the state claimed he violated his probation again by committing new offenses. In February 2001, further violations were noted which included again not paying fees or attending required programs. A hearing took place where the court ultimately decided to revoke all of the appellant's suspended sentences. The appellant argued that the court was wrong to revoke his entire sentence given the circumstances, but the court found sufficient evidence that he violated probation rules. The appeal confirmed that the appellant had multiple opportunities to meet the probation requirements but did not follow through. While the court affirmed the revocation, it recognized that the appellant’s remaining time on one of the sentences was less than what the trial court indicated and ordered a correction about it.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-920, Robert Lerone Mims appealed his conviction for violating probation terms. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of three years of Appellant's suspended sentence and remand the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-252, Kenneth Bristol appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. No one dissented. Kenneth Bristol was sentenced to serve five years, with a part of the sentence suspended while he followed rules of probation. He had a tough time fulfilling the probation conditions. The state claimed he did not show up for appointments and failed to pay restitution. This led to an application to revoke his suspended sentence. When Bristol was arrested, the court held several hearings but did not finalize his case right away. There were discussions about his appeal, but it wasn’t clear whether it was processed correctly. The court noted that Bristol was not given a fair chance to appeal the earlier decision to reject his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The higher court found that there was not enough evidence to show his suspended sentence was revoked properly. They reversed the lower court's decision and told them to look into the case again, allowing Bristol another chance to appeal his previous decision.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.