Impeachment Evidence

F-2018-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-336, Donnie Graham appealed his conviction for first degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to include three years of post-imprisonment community supervision but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Donnie Graham was found guilty of first degree rape after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and a fine. The case was heard in the District Court of Comanche County. Graham's main argument was about his right to have effective legal help during his trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not investigate earlier rape claims made by the victim and did not present evidence that could have proved those claims were false. He insisted that because of his lawyer's mistakes, he did not get a fair trial. The court looked closely at this claim. They first checked if Graham’s lawyer did not do their job properly according to professional standards. They needed to see if the lawyer's performance was bad enough to have affected the trial's outcome. After reviewing everything, the court decided that Graham did not show enough proof that his lawyer was ineffective. They denied Graham's request for a hearing to further examine his claims. Overall, the court changed his sentence to include three years of supervision after his prison time but upheld the decision regarding his guilt.

Continue ReadingF-2018-336

F-2018-929

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case:** Andrew Joseph Revilla v. The State of Oklahoma **Citation:** 2019 OK CR 30 **Date Filed:** December 19, 2019 **Docket Number:** F-2018-929 **Summary Opinion** **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- **Overview:** Andrew Joseph Revilla was convicted in Jackson County District Court on two counts of Lewd Molestation of a Minor and one count of Forcible Sodomy, receiving concurrent twenty-year sentences. He raised five propositions of error in his appeal, which the Court addressed. --- ### Propositions of Error **Proposition I - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Revilla claimed ineffective assistance because his counsel failed to file a motion to quash based on insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. The Court found that the evidentiary standards at a preliminary hearing do not require strict adherence to corroboration rules and that the victim's testimony, along with corroborative evidence, was sufficient for bindover. As such, the claim did not support a finding of ineffective assistance. **Proposition II - Improper Evidence of Other Crimes:** Revilla contended that evidence of his drug use and criminal behavior introduced during cross-examination of character witnesses was prejudicial. The Court noted that this evidence was permissible to challenge the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, defense counsel did not object to this line of questioning, which limited grounds for relief. **Proposition III - Omitting Jury Instruction:** Revilla argued that the trial court improperly omitted an explanation regarding how jurors should treat prior inconsistent statements by the victim. The Court acknowledged the omission but concluded the error did not affect the trial’s outcome since the victim's preliminary statements were not exculpatory. **Proposition IV - Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Revilla alleged various instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The Court found that most complaints lacked timely objections and did not undermine the fairness of the trial. **Proposition V - Cumulative Error:** Revilla asserted that even if individual errors were not significant, their cumulative effect denied him a fair trial. The Court found no cumulative impact from the identified issues. --- ### Decision The Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Jackson County. Revilla's claims of error were denied, and his conviction was upheld. **Mandate ordered upon filing of this decision.** **For Appellant:** Kenny Goza **For Appellee:** Mike Hunter, Attorney General **Judges' Concurrence:** Lewis, Lumpkin, Hudson, Rowland all concurred with the opinion. [**Click Here to Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-929_1734877175.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-929

F-2018-360

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-360, McNeary appealed his conviction for lewd acts with a child under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Goldy Romeo McNeary was found guilty by a jury for two counts of committing lewd acts with a child under 16 years old. The jury sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, and these sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. The court also decided that McNeary must serve 85% of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. McNeary appealed his conviction, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the trial court wrongfully allowed evidence of other bad acts, which he said made his trial unfair. Second, he said that this evidence was more harmful than helpful, violating his right to a fair trial. Third, he argued that the trial court did not give the jury proper instructions about how to use this evidence. Fourth, he felt that the trial court was wrong to not allow him to present evidence about Speck Homes, where the acts took place. Lastly, he believed that when considering all the errors together, they warranted a new trial. For the first two points, the court looked at whether the admission of the other crimes evidence was an obvious mistake and if it affected McNeary’s rights. They concluded that even if there was a mistake, it did not change the outcome since there was clear evidence of his guilt. Thus, the evidence did not rise to the level of a serious error. For the third point, the judge had promised to give instructions about the other crimes evidence but failed to do so at the right time. However, since the judge provided some instructions later, the court found no harm was done to McNeary from this. On the fourth point about Speck Homes, the court reasoned that the evidence was not allowed mainly because it was not relevant and also tried to avoid bad effects such as confusion. The trial judge made a choice based on their understanding of the law, and the appellate court did not find it to be a mistake. Lastly, the court examined McNeary's claim that all the errors combined were enough to grant him a new trial. They determined that no significant individual errors had occurred that would justify this request. In conclusion, the court upheld the judgment and sentencing, affirming McNeary’s conviction without any dissent from the other judges involved.

Continue ReadingF-2018-360

F-2018-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-147, Marcus Dewayne Boyd appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court. One judge dissented. Marcus Dewayne Boyd was found guilty by a jury of serious crimes, including murder and several counts of shooting at people. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for the murder, twenty years for each shooting count, and two years for the weapon possession. The judge ordered that these sentences should be served one after the other, meaning Boyd would spend a long time in prison before having a chance for parole. During the appeal, Boyd argued several points, saying that his trial was unfair. He mentioned that it was wrong for the court to allow evidence about his gang affiliation. The court saw that this evidence helped explain why the crimes happened, so they disagreed with Boyd's claim. He also said it was unfair that the prosecutor questioned a witness about her relatives who had been prosecuted. The court agreed that this questioning was okay to show potential bias and did not cause an error. Boyd claimed that the way police showed the lineup of suspects was unfair and could influence witnesses. However, the court found the lineup was appropriate and did not break any rules about how police should conduct lineups. Boyd further argued that the prosecution did not share some evidence that could have helped him in his defense, but the court decided that he did not prove this claim. Boyd also objected to how one of the witnesses, who had a prior conviction, was treated in court. The court stated that having a history of misdemeanors is generally allowed as it can show a witness's credibility. Furthermore, Boyd said he was made to wear a ankle restraint during the trial without a good reason. The court recognized that this was not justified but ultimately decided it did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. On the point of his lawyer's performance, Boyd claimed his lawyer did not defend him properly and raised many issues that could have been objected to but were not. However, the court noted that there were no errors in the trial that would change the outcome, so the attorney’s actions were acceptable. Finally, Boyd argued that the combination of all these issues made the trial unfair. The court agreed that there was only one area where there was an error, but this alone was not enough to convince them that it affected the jury's decision. In summary, the court found no reason to change the conviction or sentence, agreeing that the trial was mostly fair and that Boyd received appropriate legal representation, despite a few concerns about courtroom procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2018-147

F-2018-586

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Here is a summary of the court's decision in the case of Traevon Dontyce Harbert: **Case Overview:** Traevon Dontyce Harbert was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County for First Degree Murder (Count 1), Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), and Conspiracy to Commit Murder (Count 3). He received a life sentence for murder, two years for possession of a firearm, and four years for conspiracy, with sentences running consecutively. **Propositions of Error:** Harbert appealed his conviction, arguing two main points: 1. **Insufficient Evidence:** He contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and that he had acted with malice. The court analyzed the evidence under the standard asserted in *Jackson v. Virginia*, determining that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Exclusion of Evidence:** Harbert argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding an arrest warrant for another suspect, which he felt was important for his defense. The court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court acted reasonably, as the excluded evidence was based on hearsay from witnesses rather than facts within the detective's personal knowledge. The court found that the defense was still able to effectively question the detective and present alternative theories. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied both propositions, affirming the judgment and sentence against Harbert. The decision indicated that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's conclusions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. **Opinion Author:** Judge Lumpkin. **Final Note:** The court's rulings underscore the importance of both the sufficiency of evidence required for a conviction and the adherence to procedural rules regarding evidence admission. For further details or to download the full opinion, visit [this link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-586_1735313750.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2018-586

F-2018-502

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-502, Randall Patrick Molloy appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Molloy's conviction. One justice dissented. Molloy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for hurting a child, which is a serious crime. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixteen years and pay a fine of $5,000. However, the judge agreed to lessen his sentence by taking away three years, meaning he would only have to serve thirteen years in prison. Molloy raised two main problems with his trial. First, he argued that he didn't get a fair trial because the state didn't share an agreement with a co-defendant that might have helped his case. Second, he felt that instructions given to the jury were confusing and didn't help them understand the facts related to the co-defendant's earlier statements. The court reviewed all the evidence and listened to the arguments from both sides. They pointed out that for Molloy to get a new trial based on not receiving a fair trial, he had to show that there was a clear mistake that changed how the trial turned out. Ultimately, they found that there were no clear mistakes or errors in the trial. The court noted that the information about the co-defendant was known to Molloy's lawyer during the trial, and therefore, it did not affect the outcome negatively. Regarding the jury instructions, the court also concluded that those instructions did not clearly cause any problems that could change the trial's result. The jury had enough information to make a fair decision about Molloy's guilt based on the evidence presented. In summary, because the court found that there were no serious mistakes during the trial, they decided to uphold the original decision made against Molloy.

Continue ReadingF-2018-502

F-2017-153

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-153, Crawley appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Felony Eluding, Second Degree Burglary, and Possession of Burglary Tools. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the exclusion of key evidence violated Crawley's right to a fair trial, leading to the reversal of his convictions for Counts 1 and 2. A judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-153

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

F 2015-738

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-738, Richard Jerrel Jackson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming the rest of the conviction. One judge dissented. Jackson was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. His sentences included life imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and varying years for the other charges, all to be served consecutively. Jackson raised several arguments on appeal, mainly focusing on claims of double jeopardy, ineffective counsel, and evidence errors. The court found that it was wrong for Jackson to be convicted of possession of three drugs when they were all found together. The State agreed that this violated the rules against double punishment, leading to a reversal of the convictions related to the marijuana and alprazolam. For the other claims, including the effectiveness of Jackson's lawyer and various evidentiary issues, the court ruled largely in favor of the trial's findings, concluding that Jackson had not demonstrated any substantial harm or errors that affected his conviction significantly. This included affirming the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancements and the handling of evidence during the trial. In summary, while the court dismissed two of the charges against Jackson, it upheld the others and determined that there were no significant errors in how the trial was conducted. The judges agreed on most aspects of the case, with one judge expressing a differing opinion on some points.

Continue ReadingF 2015-738

F-2010-1079

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1079, Dale Anthony Chambers appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved allegations made by Chambers's twelve-year-old stepdaughter against him, claiming he had sexually abused her while her mother was away. The girl testified that the abuse began in early 2009 and included inappropriate sexual acts and exposure to adult content. She ultimately revealed the abuse to her mother after first denying it, fearing punishment. Chambers's appeal centered around several arguments, particularly that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. This was due to the admission of evidence from a sexual assault examination report that included statements from a forensic interviewer who did not testify at trial. The court found that this violated Chambers's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront witnesses. The court assessed whether this error affected Chambers's substantial rights and the fairness of his trial. They noted that the admission of hearsay evidence was significant and that it likely influenced the jury's verdict, as the report was specifically requested during deliberations. Since the physical evidence was not strong, the judge emphasized that the case heavily relied on the victim's testimony alone. In conclusion, the court ruled that the improper admission of evidence was not harmless and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial for Chambers.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1079

F-2009-535

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2009-535

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

F-2005-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.

Continue ReadingF-2005-640

F-2006-191

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-191, Hurst appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hurst's sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Hurst was found guilty of a crime involving inappropriate touching, which led to a sentence of 13 years in prison. Hurst raised four main arguments for his appeal: 1. He claimed the trial court did not give proper instructions to the jury, which made it unfair for him. 2. He argued that some evidence used against him in court was obtained in an illegal way, violating his rights. 3. He said that his attorney was not allowed to talk about certain things during closing arguments, which hurt his defense. 4. He believed that all these errors combined made his trial unfair. The court looked closely at all parts of the case, including the trial records and evidence. They found that Hurst deserved to have a new sentence because the jury had not been properly instructed, particularly about how much time they could decide to give him. This was his first offense and he should have been warned about the sentencing rules. The jury had asked for help with the sentencing, which meant they might have been confused. As for the other arguments, the court decided there weren’t any mistakes that would change the result of the case, like the refusal to give instruction on eyewitness identification or the claims about the way evidence was gathered. The court also agreed that the trial judge was right in limiting what Hurst's attorney could say during closing arguments. In summary, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing where the jury would be properly instructed.

Continue ReadingF-2006-191

M-2006-555

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-555, the appellant appealed his conviction for recklessly conducting himself with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged with a crime called Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. However, after a jury trial, he was found guilty of a lesser crime, which was Reckless Conduct With a Firearm. The punishment for this was six months in jail and a fine of $500. The appellant raised several arguments for why he believed the jury should have decided differently. First, he claimed that he was not properly told about his right to defend himself when he was faced with danger. Second, he argued that he could not access evidence that would show that a witness was not telling the truth. Third, he felt that the jury's decision was based on guesses rather than solid proof. Lastly, he believed he did not have good help from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the instructions given to the jury were not clear about the appellant's right to self-defense. The jury had even sent a note to the trial court saying they did not feel they understood this important piece of information. The law says that a person must have the chance to explain their side of the story, especially when it comes to self-defense, and in this case, the jury did not get the right instructions about that. Since this was a big mistake that could have affected the jury’s decision, the court decided to reverse the original judgment. It means the appellant will have another chance to prove himself in a new trial. The court did not explore all the details of the self-defense claim but decided that the jury needed the proper guidance on this important matter. The case is now remanded back to the District Court for a new trial where the jury can hear the complete story, including the self-defense argument. This verdict was supported by the judges, but one judge had a different opinion about the case.

Continue ReadingM-2006-555

F-2005-557

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-557

F 2005-659

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-659, Sundeep Kishore appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution, sending it back to the district court for further determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2005-659

F-2004-293

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-293, Sarah Lynne Ganis appealed her conviction for nine counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that her convictions were upheld, but her sentence was modified to run all counts concurrently. One judge dissented. Sarah was found guilty of neglecting her children. She was sentenced to a lot of time in prison, with some counts getting longer sentences than others. She appealed this decision because she thought there weren't enough facts to prove she was guilty, the jury wasn't given the right instructions, and she was punished unfairly for the same actions more than once. She also argued that some testimonies and pictures used in the trial were too harsh and unrelated, and that evidence of other issues in her life was unfairly included. Sarah believed these problems made her trial unfair. On review, the court looked closely at Sarah's arguments. They decided that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s decision. Even though some jury instructions could have been better, they didn't think it made a big difference in the outcome of the trial. The court also found that it was appropriate for Sarah to be convicted for separate counts involving different children and incidents, meaning she didn’t suffer from double punishment. Regarding the pictures and testimonies, the court believed they were relevant to the case and didn't unfairly sway the jury. They also thought the evidence of Sarah receiving assistance was closely related to the charges against her, not a separate crime. After considering everything, the court believed that while the convictions stood, the sentences were too heavy and decided to change them so she would serve her time for all counts at the same time, rather than one after the other. Even though there were claims of wrongdoings in how the case was handled during trial, the court found it didn’t lead to a new trial or different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2004-293

F-2003-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1261, Ronnie Odell Gargus appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation, five counts of Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gargus' convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Gargus was found guilty of serious sexual offenses against a child. The jury decided on lengthy prison sentences for each count, totaling a significant amount of time in prison. Gargus raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should have been allowed to ask the State's expert witness about any bias in his testimony against Gargus. The court acknowledged that usually, a witness cannot be questioned about their past arrests if there was no conviction. However, the court agreed that there are times when it is important to explore a witness’s potential bias, especially if the witness has pending criminal issues. Despite this, the court found that excluding the questioning about the expert's bias did not change the outcome of the case since there was also strong evidence against Gargus, including the child’s own credible testimony. Second, Gargus claimed he was not properly informed before the court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The court noted that Gargus did not raise this issue during the trial. However, they agreed that the amount of restitution was not clearly supported by evidence, and that needed to be corrected. The court ordered a new hearing to determine the correct amount that Gargus should pay. Overall, the court upheld the convictions and long sentences but recognized that some legal issues concerning restitution needed further attention. They will have a new hearing to ensure the restitution amount is fair and based on proper evidence.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1261

F 2003-1401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1401, Toni Lisa Dixon appealed her conviction for Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol, second offense; resisting an officer; and failure to stop at a stop sign. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her DUI conviction to a first offense and ordered a resentencing on that charge. The conviction for resisting an officer was affirmed, but the fine was reduced to $500. The conviction for failure to stop at a stop sign was also affirmed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1401

F-2001-1224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1224

M-2003-450

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.

Continue ReadingM-2003-450

M-2003-784

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.

Continue ReadingM-2003-784

F-2000-948

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.

Continue ReadingF-2000-948