In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2019-664, the appellant appealed his conviction for illegal entry with unlawful intent, outraging public decency, and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for illegal entry but affirmed the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer. One judge dissented. James Brewer was accused of several misdemeanors after the police were called to his neighbor's house because he was trying to break in. The neighbor's children had reported the incident to their mother, who called the police. When officers arrived, they found Brewer in a neighboring home, naked on the floor, being restrained by his brother. He was not cooperative when the police tried to arrest him. During the trial, the court heard from police officers but did not hear directly from the neighbor or her children. The prosecution's case relied on the officers' testimonies about what they found and how they arrested Brewer. He represented himself during the trial with the help of standby counsel. Brewer raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that he should have received credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court explained that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether to give this credit and stated that there was insufficient information showing that he was unable to pay for a bond that would have let him out of jail before the trial. He also claimed the prosecutor made mistakes during the trial, like bringing up parts of his attitude that were not relevant and making comments during closing arguments. The court decided that the prosecutor's actions did not unfairly affect the trial. Brewer argued that there was not enough evidence for his conviction for illegal entry. The court agreed that the evidence was weak because the neighbor and her children did not testify and there was no direct proof linking him to tampering with the air conditioners. His other claims related to cross-examination and the wording of the charges against him were found to be insufficient to overturn the convictions for the other two charges. His conviction for the illegal entry was reversed, meaning the prosecution could not pursue it further, but the convictions for outraging public decency and assault on a police officer were upheld. One judge had a different opinion and dissented from the majority ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-662, a fifteen-year-old juvenile appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. One judge dissented. The case started when the State filed a petition claiming that the Appellant committed the act of burglary. A trial was held without a jury, and the court found him guilty. The Appellant then appealed this decision, claiming there were two main problems. First, the Appellant argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed that the State did not show enough evidence for the breaking part of the burglary charge. However, they decided that the evidence was enough for a different crime called Entering a Building with Certain Intent, which is also known as Illegal Entry. Second, the Appellant argued that he did not properly give up his right to a jury trial. The court said this claim was not valid. They found that the Appellant had a lawyer during the trial and he signed a form saying he was okay with not having a jury. There was no evidence that he did not understand this decision or that he was forced into it. In the end, the court modified the original ruling and confirmed that the Appellant was guilty of Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. This decision was officially recorded by the court, and they ordered that the correct information be entered into the court records.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-493, Donnell E. Williams appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Williams was found guilty by a jury of breaking into a place that was not his and hiding things that were stolen. The jury recommended a punishment of twenty-five years in prison for each count, with the need to serve all the punishment one after the other. Williams argued several points in his appeal. First, he said that the court did not tell the jury they could consider that he might have had permission to enter the property. Second, he thought the jury should have been told about a lesser crime than burglary. Third, he claimed that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. Fourth, he felt that his twenty-five-year sentences were too long. Finally, he believed that all the mistakes made during the trial, when added together, meant he did not have a fair chance in court. After looking at everything in the case, the court found that Williams's points for appeal did not require them to change the jury's decision on his guilt. They agreed that the jury did not need information on asking if he had consent or the lesser charge since there was no strong evidence to support his claims. They also concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not prevent Williams from getting a fair trial because there was strong evidence against him. However, the court felt that making Williams serve his sentences one after the other was too severe, especially because he was living in a vacant house and facing challenges like being homeless and struggling with substance use. They decided that twenty-five years was enough time for him to pay for what he did and get the help he might need. In short, the court kept his convictions but changed his sentence so that he would serve his time together rather than separately. This way, he would have a better chance to start again after serving his time. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentences to run together, believing the original decision by the trial court was correct given Williams's history of prior convictions.