Hughes County

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

M-2011-1083

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.

Continue ReadingM-2011-1083

S-2008-953

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-953, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of James Lee Sharrock for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had found that the child's out-of-court statements were inadmissible. The majority of the court agreed, while one member dissented. The case started when Sharrock was charged with two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. At a preliminary hearing, the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with one of the counts. This was because the statements made by a four-year-old child could not be used, as the child was not present to testify, which made those statements hearsay. The State argued that the judge made a mistake by not allowing the testimony of two adults who had interacted with the child. These adults wanted to share what the child said about their experience. However, the judge explained that according to Oklahoma law, the child must either be available to testify or fit certain criteria for hearsay to be considered valid. The State then appealed this decision, and another judge confirmed the initial ruling. Finally, the case was brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented. They concluded that the lower court's decision was correct because the magistrate had the right to determine whether the child was available to testify. In the end, the court upheld the initial decisions made by both lower court judges, stating no mistakes were found in their rulings. The final rulings and orders were affirmed, confirming that the hearsay statements from the child could not be used in the case against Sharrock.

Continue ReadingS-2008-953

C-2002-1525

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1525, Campbell appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence. One judge dissented. Campbell was charged in Hughes County and entered a guilty plea while maintaining her innocence, known as an Alford plea. She was originally sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Campbell later appealed, asking to withdraw her guilty plea or reduce her sentence. The court found that although she could not withdraw her plea because she had been properly informed about the rights she was waiving and the maximum penalty for her conviction, her sentence was too harsh. The court decided to change her sentence from twenty-five years to ten years, although it did not reverse her conviction. The dissenting judge believed the trial judge's original decision on the sentence should stand.

Continue ReadingC-2002-1525

F-1999-1615

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1615, Jackie Lavern Nuckols appealed his conviction for Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Nuckols was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a $100,000 fine. He appealed his conviction, raising several issues. First, he argued that old convictions were unfairly used against him, which should not have been allowed. The court agreed that this was not right since the old convictions could have influenced the jury too much. However, they also said that this alone didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Second, there was a problem with evidence about another crime that was brought up during the trial. The court found that this evidence was not appropriate but decided that it didn't have a big impact on the jury’s decision. Third, Nuckols thought that his fine was too high and should be changed, but the court did not agree with this point. Fourth, he claimed that he didn't have enough help from his lawyer when he needed it. The court said that even though his lawyer might not have done everything perfectly, it didn’t hurt Nuckols' chance for a fair trial. His lawyer had a chance to represent him in other important parts of the trial. Lastly, Nuckols felt that when all of these issues were looked at together, they took away his right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that some mistakes were made, especially about the old convictions and the mention of another crime, and they concluded that these combined errors were serious enough to justify a new trial. All in all, the court decided to reverse Nuckols’ conviction and said he should have a new trial to properly address these issues.

Continue ReadingF-1999-1615