Incriminating Statements Archives

F-2018-477

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-477, Gerald L. Taylor appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Gerald L. Taylor was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery using a firearm and having a firearm when he was not allowed to have one due to past convictions. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the judge sentenced Taylor to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Taylor raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that his incriminating statements should not have been allowed in court because he wanted to remain silent. The court looked at whether he had clearly stated this right. It found that even though he initially said he didn’t want to talk, he later chose to answer questions. Therefore, the court believed he willingly spoke to police after being informed of his rights and upheld the decision to admit his statements. Second, Taylor claimed that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the removal of a juror who he thought could not understand English well enough to participate in the trial. However, the judge questioned the juror and decided she was competent. Since Taylor had not properly objected to the juror's presence and even invited the situation, this issue was not considered a strong point for his appeal. Third, Taylor stated that his lawyer did not help him effectively, especially concerning the juror issue. However, the court found that despite any possible mistakes, the evidence against Taylor was very strong. His lawyer’s actions did not cause him to lose a fair trial. Lastly, Taylor claimed that even if no single error was enough to change his conviction, the overall combination of issues should lead to a new trial. The court ruled that there were no errors significant enough to warrant a new trial or change in his sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and Taylor's sentences, indicating that he received a fair trial despite his complaints.

F-2016-519

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 24, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-519, Kevin Bernell Warrior appealed his conviction for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant him a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial. One judge dissented. Kevin Warrior was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The evidence used to convict him was mostly circumstantial, meaning it did not come from direct witnesses at the crime scene. At trial, it was believed that the weapon used in the murder was not found, and the state suggested that Warrior had a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, alongside some statements he made that seemed incriminating. After his conviction, Warrior learned while in jail that another man, Mikel Ball, had confessed to committing the murder during a robbery. This information came to Warrior from a fellow inmate, Marquez Goff, who had talked to Ball. Goff also found out that police had taken a gun from Ball shortly after his arrest, and that this gun matched the bullet from the murder victim. Warrior's lawyers filed a request for a new trial, arguing that this evidence was important and could not have been found before the trial. The court agreed that the evidence was new, could change the outcome of the first trial, and was not something that Warrior could have discovered in time for his original case. Thus, the court decided that Warrior should get a new trial because this new information showed a reasonable chance that he might not have been guilty of the crime he was convicted of.

F-2012-622

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-622, Dewayne Edward Kemp appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Felony Murder but vacated the conviction for First Degree Burglary due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented. Kemp and two accomplices attempted to burglarize a home when the homeowner shot one of the accomplices fatally and injured Kemp. During his time in jail, Kemp made incriminating statements on recorded phone calls. Kemp's appeal included several arguments. He claimed that the state wrongly used hypothetical questions during jury selection, which he said made it difficult to have a fair trial. However, the court found these questions helpful for understanding the law and ruled against him. He also argued that he should have been allowed to present a statement made by a co-defendant, claiming that he was the one who planned the burglary. But since Kemp could not show that this statement would prove his innocence, the court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it. Kemp raised concerns about the prosecutor's choice to strike some jurors, suggesting it was based on gender. The court reviewed the reasons given by the prosecutor for these strikes and concluded that they were valid, thus rejecting Kemp's argument. Kemp pointed out that being convicted of both felony murder and burglary for the same incident was unfair and violated his rights against double jeopardy. The court agreed with this claim and voided the burglary conviction, stating that the two charges were too closely related. In summary, the court maintained Kemp's felony murder conviction but removed the burglary charge as it conflicted with double jeopardy rules.

F-2010-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-665, Roy C. Williams appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and two counts of Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count of his conviction while affirming the others. One judge dissented. Roy C. Williams was sentenced for his involvement in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. Williams was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court of two counts related to using a vehicle in the shooting and one count for murder. The judge sentenced him to a total of eighteen years in prison, which included twelve years for the murder charge and three years for each of the other counts, to be served one after the other. Williams raised several arguments as reasons for appealing his conviction. He believed that his confession to the police should not have been used against him because he claimed he did not have his right to remain silent protected. He also thought that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. Upon reviewing the case, the court decided that the law enforcement officials acted correctly when they obtained Williams's confession. The court said that he willingly talked to them, so this argument was denied. Regarding the second argument, the court noted that Williams knowingly drove to a place where rival gang members were located with guns in the vehicle. This behavior was enough to show he was part of the act that led to the shooting, so this argument was also denied. The third argument was about a legal principle called the merger doctrine. Williams’s defense argued that his felony murder charge should not stand because it was related to the same act as the charge for using a vehicle to facilitate the shooting. However, the court decided to keep the felony murder conviction, stating that both charges could stand because of the way the law is now interpreted. For his fourth argument concerning double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, the court agreed. They stated that the charges were based on the same set of facts, so they could not convict him on both counts pertaining to the same act. Because of this, the conviction for the second count of using a vehicle was reversed. The fifth argument was about whether Williams should receive credit for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court ruled that it was up to the trial judge to decide whether to grant that credit and found no evidence that the judge made a mistake in denying it. This argument was also denied. The sixth argument claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court found that even if his lawyer made some mistakes, they did not affect the overall outcome of the case. After reviewing all of his arguments, the court decided to reverse the second count concerning the vehicle but kept the murder conviction and the first charge intact. Thus, Williams had mixed results from his appeal, with one conviction dismissed but others upheld. In conclusion, the decision resulted in one count being reversed and the remaining convictions affirmed, meaning Williams would continue to serve his sentence, minus the count that was reversed.

F-2008-1014

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.

S-2008-761

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 5, 2009
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-761, Robert Lee Smallen appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's suppression order of his statements made during a police interview. Smallen's refusal to waive his rights to silence and counsel was upheld, and he was found not to have voluntarily waived those rights. One judge dissented.

S-2005-840

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.