In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-584, Sarah Mae Jones appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified it to reflect two years and ten months instead of the full sentence. One dissenting opinion was noted. Sarah Mae Jones had initially entered a guilty plea on October 18, 2001, for possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended. This meant she wouldn't have to serve time in jail if she followed certain rules. However, after violating her probation, she had parts of her suspended sentence revoked on two different occasions. The first revocation happened because she did not meet some requirements like reporting in person, maintaining a job, and avoiding illegal drugs. This led to a 60-day revocation. The second time, in March 2004, the state argued that she had again broken the rules of her probation. The court held another hearing where the judge decided to revoke her entire suspended sentence. On appeal, Jones claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the complete revocation of her sentence. However, the court found that her own admissions during the hearing showed she had indeed violated her probation terms, which justified the judge’s decision. They explained that proving a violation only needs to show that it was likely she broke the rules, not to have a witness directly see it happen. In her second argument, Jones said the decision to revoke her entire suspended sentence without giving her credit for time already served was too harsh. The state agreed with her on this point, and upon reviewing her case, the court modified the revocation to two years and ten months, accounting for the time she had already spent under the suspended sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke her suspended sentence but adjusted the length of that sentence to better reflect the circumstances.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-933, the appellant appealed his conviction for abandonment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant was found guilty of abandoning his child by not paying court-ordered child support. He owed nearly $10,000 in unpaid support for his ten-year-old daughter. After initially being sentenced to five years in prison, his sentence was later changed to a suspended sentence of about four years and eight months. This meant he would not go to prison immediately and could work on paying the support he owed. The appellant was required to get a job, do community service, and make monthly payments towards his child support. However, he fell behind on these payments, and the court eventually issued a warrant for his arrest because of this failure to pay. Over the next couple of years, the court continued to postpone his sentencing. The appellant managed to pay some of his arrears, but he still owed money. By 2003, the court revoked his suspended sentence, saying he had not met the payment requirements. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the appellant's suspended sentence actually ended before the revocation took place. The court explained that even though he had missed a payment, the revocation occurred after his sentence had technically expired, which was different from the usual rules. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the revocation and said the case must be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-513, the appellant appealed her conviction for resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the fine for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury for two charges: resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. The incident happened when a truck driver reported a car driving erratically on a highway. When officers arrived, they found the appellant behind the wheel, showing signs of intoxication with the smell of alcohol and marijuana. Initially, the appellant was compliant, but she soon became aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. When they tried to arrest her, a struggle ensued, and the appellant physically fought with the officers. After getting her under control, the officers conducted a search of her vehicle and found marijuana. Later, while being booked at the jail, they discovered she had a marijuana cigarette in her pocket. The appellant believed her sentence of twenty months for the crimes was too harsh. She requested that they serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court found that the sentences were reasonable and did not shock their conscience, so they decided to keep them consecutive. However, they agreed with the appellant that a fine of $1,000 imposed by the trial court was too high, as it exceeded what the law allowed. The maximum fine for the possession charge was actually $500 according to the law, so they reduced her fine to this amount. In summary, while the court upheld the appellant's conviction and the overall punishment, they made a small change to the fine amount.
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.
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. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.