In OCCA case No. F-2010-555, Keighton Jon Budder appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape (Counts I and III), Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count II), and Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count IV). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences for Counts I and III to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-457, Jacquelin Clariece Alexander appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for one charge, but reversed the revocation for the other charge, sending it back for dismissal. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-99, Sheila Diane Royal appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm all of Royal's convictions but to modify her sentence for one of the misdemeanor charges due to a procedural error during her trial. One judge dissented. Royal was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. The jury determined that Royal had prior felony convictions, which enhanced her sentence. Royal received a life sentence without parole for the drug trafficking charge, among other sentences for the remaining charges. The case began when police officers went to Royal's house to look for a man with a warrant. Royal and her boyfriend denied knowing him and gave consent for the officers to search. During the search, officers found scales, crack cocaine, marijuana, a firearm, and a large amount of cash, leading to Royal's arrest. Royal raised several issues on appeal, including claims of multiple punishments for the trafficking and tax stamp offenses, the proper handling of her prior convictions during the trial, and the way the trial court conducted jury selection. The court found that the convictions for trafficking and failing to obtain a tax stamp did not violate double jeopardy rules because the laws intended for separate punishments. It also concluded that Royal did not make a sufficient objection to how her prior convictions were handled, thus denying her request for relief. Regarding the claim about possession of paraphernalia, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by improperly separating the trial stages, which influenced the jury's punishment decision. The court modified her sentence for this charge accordingly. The jury selection process was also scrutinized, but the court upheld the removal of certain jurors who may not have been impartial due to their own legal issues. Lastly, the court noted that Royal was required to wear a shock device during trial, which raised concerns under legal rules governing restraints on defendants. The court agreed that there wasn't enough evidence justifying the need for such restraint, but because it was not visible to the jury, it did not affect the trial's outcome. In summary, while Royal's convictions were largely upheld, the court made adjustments based on procedural concerns during her trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1142, the Appellant appealed his conviction for seven counts, including five counts of Knowingly Concealing/Receiving Stolen Property, First-Degree Arson, and Second-Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse all of the Appellant's convictions due to several errors during the trial. The court identified that the Appellant was denied access to his preliminary hearing transcripts, which affected his ability for a fair trial. The court also noted there was improper joinder of cases, leading to the admission of prejudicial evidence that may have influenced the jury's verdict. One judge dissented regarding the conclusion that the errors warranted a complete reversal of the convictions, arguing that the first error was harmless and could be remedied with a sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-765, Polk appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Child Sexual Abuse, First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Kidnapping, and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal in part by reversing and dismissing the conviction for Lewd Molestation but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA Case No. F-2009-404, Kassie Lakei Bills appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Kassie Lakei Bills was found guilty of murder after a jury trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced her to Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole. Bills raised several complaints about how the trial was conducted. She argued that the trial court, which is responsible for making sure the trial runs smoothly, acted improperly during jury selection (called voir dire) by making comments that could have influenced the jurors. She said the court restricted her ability to question potential jurors about an important issue in her case: insanity. Further, Bills claimed that the trial court did not allow the jury to consider lesser offenses that might have been more appropriate, and that it should not have allowed certain evidence that was not relevant to the case. She felt her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, and there were too many mistakes made during the trial that affected her right to a fair trial. One key issue was the trial judge’s comments during jury selection. The judge told jurors that they should come to a decision quickly and warned them against being hard-headed. Bills argued that these comments pressured jurors to reach a verdict even if they had honest disagreements about the evidence. The court pointed out that such comments could be seen as coercive, leading to a situation where jurors would not feel free to express their true opinions. The court agreed with Bills that the trial judge’s comments were improper and could have influenced the jury's actions unfairly, which led to the decision to reverse her conviction and order a new trial. Since the case was sent back for a new trial, the court did not need to discuss the other complaints Bills raised about her trial or her request for a hearing regarding her lawyer's performance. In conclusion, Bills' conviction was overturned, and she was granted a new beginning in court, where she may have a chance to present her case fairly.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-959, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the lower court's decisions while modifying one of the fines imposed. One member dissented. Napoleon Eugene Manous was tried by jury in the District Court of Okmulgee County, where he was found guilty of two counts: one for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and another for driving with his license suspended. The jury sentenced him to seven years in prison with treatment and a fine for the first count, and to six months in jail with a fine for the second count. Mr. Manous raised several points in his appeal. He claimed his rights were violated in a few ways. For instance, he argued that statements he made while in custody should not have been used against him because he did not receive a warning that he had the right to remain silent (known as a Miranda warning). The court found that the statements were not obtained from police questioning, so they could be used in his trial. He also argued that hearsay evidence was wrongly allowed in his trial. However, the court found that this evidence was not used to prove something true but was only to explain why the police officer acted as he did. Therefore, it did not violate his right to a fair trial. Manous believed he did not get a fair punishment because of incorrect jury instructions about fines for his second count. The court agreed that the jury got bad information about how much they could fine him and decided to change the fine amount to $300 instead of $500. He argued that the trial court misapplied his sentence and didn’t accurately reflect the jury’s decision. The court acknowledged this mistake and agreed to correct the written judgment to match the jury’s decisions. Moreover, Manous claimed that mentioning his past legal troubles during sentencing was unfair. The court, however, found that his lawyer did not object to this at the trial, which weakened his argument on appeal. He also stated his lawyer did not properly fight against the errors during the trial that affected his sentencing. Again, the court found that many issues had already been addressed and it was not enough to have his conviction overturned. Lastly, he combined all his complaints, arguing that they collectively warranted a new trial, but the court ruled that there was no significant accumulation of errors. In summary, the court affirmed much of the initial decisions made by the lower court but did make changes to the fine in one count. One judge disagreed with part of the decision but largely supported the overall outcome.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1002, Rickey Dewayne Prince appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including possession of child pornography, lewd molestation, and first-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences but upheld his convictions. One judge dissented. Rickey Dewayne Prince faced a jury trial where he was found guilty on multiple counts related to child exploitation and abuse. His punishment included lengthy prison sentences, with certain counts requiring him to serve them consecutively, leading to a total of many years behind bars. After the trial, Prince raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to various reasons. These included improper support for the victims' testimonies by a nurse, errors in how the charges were brought, issues regarding the admission of his own statements to police, and claims about his lawyer not doing a good enough job defending him. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that while some mistakes occurred, like using the wrong statute for charging possession of child pornography, the overall outcome of the trial was justified. The judges believed that the evidence presented during the trial strongly supported Prince's convictions, even without additional corroborating details from other sources. In some points of his appeal, Prince's arguments were dismissed because he did not raise them in time during the trial, which limited how much the court could consider his issues. They also decided that any errors that did happen were not serious enough to change the trial's verdict or give him the right to a new trial. As a result, while some of Prince's sentences were adjusted to be less severe, the court affirmed many of his convictions for serious crimes against children, keeping him under a long prison sentence for his actions. The court made changes to the official records to properly reflect the legal basis for his convictions while confirming that he did not face unfair treatment during his trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-210, Eric Anthony Damon appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a new hearing, allowing Damon to appoint new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Eric Anthony Damon faced serious charges, and he decided to enter a guilty plea without fully understanding all the details. After entering the plea, he felt that his defense lawyer did not help him properly, especially during the trial. He thought this was unfair and wrote to ask the court if he could change his plea. The court discussed whether Damon should get a new lawyer to help him withdraw his guilty plea. When someone says their lawyer didn’t help them well, the law usually says they should have a different lawyer to make sure everything is alright. The court realized that it can be really tricky when the same lawyer is trying to help with the plea withdrawal while being accused of not doing a good job. Damon had reasons to believe his plea wasn’t fair. During the trial, he had trouble with getting some witnesses to show up. He felt forced to plead guilty since his lawyer could not call certain key witnesses who might have helped him. The court didn’t want to decide if his plea was valid right away. Instead, they thought it would be best to let Damon have a new lawyer represent him in this important matter. In summary, the court agreed with Damon and said he should have a chance to explain his situation better with new legal support. They ordered this to be done and made sure Damon had the right to defend himself with a lawyer who could deal with his concerns about his earlier representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-542, Gatewood appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Using a Telephone to Cause the Commission of the Crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Gatewood's petition for writ of certiorari, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Roscoe Curtis Gatewood, Jr. was in trouble because he was accused of selling drugs and using a phone to help with that crime. He decided to plead guilty to these charges with the advice of his lawyer. The judge gave him a long sentence. Gatewood later wanted to change his plea because he felt his lawyer had a conflict of interest. The conflict happened because both Gatewood and his girlfriend, who was also accused, were represented by lawyers from the same law firm. Gatewood's girlfriend decided to testify against him in exchange for a lighter sentence. This meant Gatewood's lawyer could not defend him as well because he was also looking out for the girlfriend's best interests. The court agreed that this was a serious problem, which unfairly affected Gatewood's case. As a result, the court allowed Gatewood to take back his guilty pleas, meaning he could go to trial instead. The decision to reverse the previous ruling was made so Gatewood could have a fair chance to defend himself. In summary, the court found that Gatewood's rights were harmed because of his lawyer's conflicting duties, and they reversed his conviction so he could have another chance in court.
In OCCA case No. C 2009-665, Sutton appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Sutton's request to withdraw his guilty plea. Sutton dissented. Petitioner Donald Edward Sutton, Jr. had pleaded guilty to a serious crime. The judge sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he would only serve eight of those years before possibly getting out. After the plea, Sutton thought things were unfair and said he didn't understand everything when he agreed to plead guilty. Sutton said he didn’t know about important details like having to spend 85% of his time in prison before being eligible for parole or that he would have to register as a sex offender. He felt that he didn't get the help he needed from his lawyer when he entered his plea and when he tried to take it back later. Sutton thought his 20-year sentence was too harsh, especially because he believed there were reasons to be lenient. After reviewing all the information provided, the court agreed that Sutton wasn't given all the facts he needed to make an informed choice about his plea. This omission made his agreement invalid since he didn’t enter it knowingly and voluntarily. The court decided that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and gave orders for the case to go back for further consideration. The other claims Sutton made about his lawyer and the fairness of his sentence became unnecessary to discuss because of this main issue. In summary, Sutton was given a chance to change his plea because the court found that he wasn’t properly informed about important consequences of his decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-335, Jermaine Darnell Jeffery appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Jermaine was found guilty of several serious crimes related to a shooting incident. During the trial, the jury decided on punishments for his actions, including life in prison for murder. Jermaine argued that there wasn't enough proof to connect his shooting with the death of the victim and that he was punished unfairly for the same crime more than once, which is known as double jeopardy. He also claimed that his rights were violated when the court allowed evidence about his silence after being arrested and that hearsay statements from other witnesses should not have been allowed. Jermaine felt he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor talked about things not proven in court and that his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not pointing out mistakes during the trial. The court reviewed all the evidence and arguments. They agreed that there was enough proof for the murder charge but recognized a mistake in charging Jermaine with both murder and the shooting he did, leading to the reversal of that specific charge. The court found that some errors did happen, but most were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they upheld the punishments for the other crimes while agreeing to dismiss the shooting conviction.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-317, Lee Otis Robinson, Jr. appealed his conviction for entering a no contest plea. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Robinson a new hearing to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Robinson had entered his no contest plea in the Oklahoma County District Court but later wanted to change that decision. He argued that he didn't fully understand what he was doing when he entered the plea and that he had been confused and misled. Additionally, Robinson claimed that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. His lawyer was supposed to represent him during the plea hearing and also during the hearing where Robinson asked to change his plea. However, during the second hearing, the lawyer ended up saying things that were against Robinson’s interests. This created a problem because it meant that Robinson wasn't getting fair help from his lawyer, and he was disadvantaged in his efforts to withdraw his plea. The court found that it was important for Robinson to have a different, unbiased lawyer for a fair hearing. They decided he should be allowed to have a new hearing with a lawyer who had no conflict of interest. The ruling meant that Robinson's case would be sent back to the district court so that the new hearing could take place.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1016, Robert C. Ferrell appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances (MDMA, or Ecstasy) and possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but remand for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Robert C. Ferrell was found guilty by a jury in McIntosh County. The jury decided that he was guilty of two serious crimes: having a large amount of drugs and having firearms in a way that was illegal. The judge then sentenced him to serve twenty years in prison for the drug crime and thirty-five years for the weapon charge. These sentences would be served one after the other, making a total of fifty-five years in prison. Ferrell raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his convictions. He also thought that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial. He believed his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he stated that the court made errors when it added costs related to charges he wasn't even tried for, and that the prosecutor did not act fairly. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed that the evidence showed that Ferrell had shared control over the drugs and firearms discovered during a police chase. The police had seen guns and heard conversations that suggested he was involved in wrongdoing. The court determined that this evidence was enough for a reasonable person to find him guilty. The appeal also discussed whether Ferrell's lawyer had failed him by not challenging a witness's statements or trying to block certain pieces of evidence. However, the court felt that the lawyer's actions did not affect the outcome of the case. Ferrell asked the court to change his punishment, but they decided the sentences were reasonable given his past actions. As for the other points he made about the fines and counts that were wrong, the court agreed that some costs should be removed because he was not convicted of all those charges. They also acknowledged a mistake in the legal reference for the drug charge. In the end, the court upheld Ferrell's convictions, but they sent the case back to make corrections to the official records. They found that there were no major errors that would change the outcome of the trial, so the convictions remained intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-763, Armand Rashawn Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including robbery with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One member dissented. Johnson was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 30 years in prison for some counts, while others had sentences ranging from 20 to 40 years. The main reasons for his appeal focused on concerns about how the jury was instructed and treated during the trial. Johnson argued that the trial court's actions could have influenced the jurors' decisions, which should be based on facts and law alone. The court agreed with Johnson on several points. It found that the trial judge's comments and guidance during jury selection were inappropriate and could have pressured the jurors into making decisions against their personal beliefs. This meant that the fairness of his trial was in question. Since the court decided to reverse Johnson's convictions, there was no need to examine the other claims he made about the evidence and the fairness of his sentence. The court emphasized that jurors should only be focused on the law and evidence presented to them and not on any frustrations that might come from court procedures. As a result, Johnson will get a new trial, where the procedures may be handled in a way that better protects his rights.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-432, Anthony Wayne McCosar appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Threatening an Act of Violence, Public Intoxication, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate certain fines but affirmed the other parts of the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-60, Valenta E. Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including first-degree rape, sodomy, kidnapping, and witness intimidation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold some of the convictions while reversing others. One judge dissented. Valenta E. Thompson faced serious charges in the District Court of Muskogee County. He was found guilty by a jury of crimes that included rape and sodomy, among others. The jury recommended significant sentences, leading to Thompson receiving life imprisonment for some charges and lesser sentences for others. In his appeal, Thompson raised many issues. He argued that he did not receive a fair trial, citing that he was not properly informed of the elements of some charges. Specifically, he mentioned that the jury wasn't instructed about the components necessary to prove anal sodomy and witness intimidation. These mistakes were recognized as severe enough to warrant a reversal of those convictions. Thompson also claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for rape, and he argued that incorrect jury instructions regarding his potential sentences impacted his case. In addition, he pointed out that the prosecutor had made improper comments during the trial about plea deals, and that his own lawyer did not provide adequate representation throughout the process. The court carefully reviewed all the arguments and the entire record of the case. They found that the lack of instruction for some charges was a significant error. This was particularly true for witness intimidation, where the jury did not understand what needed to be proven for a conviction. Because of this, those specific counts were reversed. However, regarding the charge of first-degree rape and other offenses, the court found enough evidence to support the convictions. The judges determined that despite the errors concerning instructions, Thompson's sentences for the remaining counts were appropriate and should be upheld. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences for most of Thompson's convictions while reversing and remanding the convictions related to anal sodomy and witness intimidation for further proceedings. Some judges agreed with this decision, but one judge dissented, believing that the convictions should not have been reversed.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-682, Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, eluding an officer, and driving under suspension. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal and deny the rest. One judge dissented. Williams had entered a nolo contendere plea, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted punishment for the crimes charged. He was sentenced to a total of 51 years in prison and fines for the various offenses. Williams later tried to withdraw his plea, claiming he had not been given the right information about his punishment and that his lawyer had not helped him properly. The court looked closely at Williams’s arguments. They agreed that he did not know he could get jail time for driving under suspension, so they decided to cancel that one-year sentence. However, they found that his pleas for the other charges were made with understanding, and he couldn't show that he would have acted differently if he had known the correct punishments for the other counts. The judges also believed that the prison sentences were not too harsh, and Williams didn’t prove that his lawyer had done a poor job. Since they found that all but one of Williams's claims were not valid, they denied those parts of the appeal. As a result, the court ordered the lower court to fix a small mistake in the paperwork regarding Williams’s plea and the specific laws he was charged with breaking. The end decision allowed Williams to be resentenced for one specific charge and made sure all details were correct in the official records.