Impartiality Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2005-366

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.

F-2003-1266

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.

M-2002-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 22, 2003
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.

RE 2000-1512

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.