Indigent Status

F-2018-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

Continue ReadingF-2018-198

MA-2018-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2018-987, Cox appealed his conviction for a criminal case that led to an accelerated sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court must prepare the appeal record and transcripts at public expense. The court noted that Cox was deemed indigent for the purpose of having an attorney appointed, but the District Court initially ruled that he had enough assets to pay for his transcripts. This created a problem because it delayed his appeal process. The court ultimately granted Cox's request for a writ of mandamus, which allowed him to move forward with his appeal without having to pay upfront for the transcripts. The decision was not unanimous, with some judges disagreeing.

Continue ReadingMA-2018-987

MA 2018-0296

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA 2018-0296, J.M.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his application for a writ of mandamus and remand the matter to the District Court. The court found that J.M.F. was personally indigent and entitled to receive transcripts at public expense for his appeal, despite the trial court's earlier ruling about his parents' ability to pay. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingMA 2018-0296

RE-2015-735

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-735

F-2011-671

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-671, Cruz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Cruz was found guilty because he used a knife to attack another person. The main question was whether he acted in self-defense. The jury believed that Cruz was the aggressor and that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. Cruz said he acted in self-defense, but the court found that the jury had enough evidence to support their decision that he did not qualify for this defense. Cruz raised several issues in his appeal. Firstly, he claimed that the evidence was not strong enough to convict him. However, the court said that the evidence was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty without self-defense. Next, Cruz said there was a problem with how the jury was chosen and that it affected the trial. The court disagreed and said that the trial judge acted correctly when explaining how long the trial would take. Cruz also mentioned that he should have been credited for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court agreed that this was an important point but noted there was no written record of this credit. However, they decided the case should be sent back to the lower court to correct this and make sure he received proper credit. He argued about the restitution order, saying the court should have determined how much he needed to pay. The court stated there was no error because a hearing was scheduled to decide on restitution after he was released. Cruz felt that the sentence he received was too harsh and that the fee for his attorney was excessive. The court ruled that the sentence was fair considering the crime and that the attorney fee would be reviewed later to check if it needed to be lowered. Lastly, Cruz claimed all the mistakes added up to mean he did not have a fair trial. The court ruled there were no real errors, so this point did not apply. In conclusion, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence but ordered that Cruz's sentence be revised to include credit for time served.

Continue ReadingF-2011-671

RE-2010-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-512

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

F-2007-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.

Continue ReadingF-2007-767

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785