Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Archives - Page 9 of 10

F-2003-1266

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.

F-2003-1136

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 9, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1136, Ernest Lynn appealed his conviction for Possession of Firearms After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Lynn had been tried in a bench trial, where he was not found guilty of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm but was convicted on another charge. He received a one-year prison sentence. Lynn argued that the trial court was wrong to convict him based on facts not presented in the original charges and that self-defense was not properly considered. He also contended that the gun found in a warrantless search should not have been used against him. The court looked at the record and saw that there was no big mistake in how the charge was presented, as Lynn admitted to having the gun. They did not agree with Lynn's claim that his mother's consent to the search was not voluntary, stating that he had no right to challenge the search. Therefore, they found no fault in how the trial court handled the case. Lynn further argued that he should be able to use self-defense as a reason for possessing the firearm. He wanted the court to allow a justification defense where a person can temporarily take a gun from an attacker to protect themselves. The court noted that other laws allow people to defend themselves, and it seemed unfair that a convicted felon could not defend their life. In the end, while the court could not change the outcome of the bench trial immediately, they remanded the case back to the district court to look at whether Lynn's self-defense claim could be valid in this situation. Thus, more hearings would be needed to determine the facts and make a final decision.

F 2004-1127

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1127, Charles Clarence Tiger appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit a felony and several burglaries. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented on the reversal of the conspiracy conviction. Tiger faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of numerous crimes, including conspiracy to commit burglary, and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. He later appealed, arguing several points, including that he didn't get a fair and speedy trial, that his lawyer didn't help him properly, and that he was punished too harshly for his crimes. The court reviewed these claims carefully. They agreed that Tiger's right to a speedy trial was not violated and that his lawyer did provide effective legal help. However, they found that two of the charges against him conflicted with each other. They decided that being punished for both burglary and robbery from the same incident was not right, so they reversed the burglary charge related to that. Additionally, the court felt there wasn't enough evidence to support Tiger's conspiracy charge, so that one was also reversed. While some of Tiger's arguments were accepted, others were rejected. The judges agreed that the remaining charges that stayed upheld were fair and within legal limits, meaning he would still have to serve his time for them. In summary, the court decided to dismiss two of the charges and keep the others, showing that while some of Tiger's claims were valid, many were not. One judge disagreed with the court's choice to dismiss the conspiracy charge, believing there was enough proof to uphold it.

F 2003-196

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

F-2003-673

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

J-2004-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.

F 2002-1540

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1540, Steven Edward Noble appealed his conviction for aggravated manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and modify his conviction for aggravated manufacturing to manufacturing less than fifty grams of methamphetamine, reducing the sentence to twenty-five years and a $50,000 fine. The sentence for possession of a firearm was modified to twenty years. However, the conviction for possession of a precursor substance was affirmed.

F-2003-315

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.

F-2002-1351

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

F-2002-1546

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1546, David Jewel Newton appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. David Jewel Newton was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was given a very long sentence of 458 years in prison. He said he did not get a fair trial because there were some biased jurors. Mr. Newton’s lawyer did not properly challenge a juror who was a police officer and should not have served on the jury. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that Mr. Newton's lawyer did not do his job well in defending him. Since the jury should have been fair, the court decided that Mr. Newton deserves a new trial where he can be tried by a new set of jurors who are fair and not biased. The dissenting opinion said that the jurors who were chosen in the trial were impartial and that there was no reason to order a new trial because the rules about jurors were being misunderstood.

F-2002-613

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.

F 2002-1116

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 14, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.

F 2000-321

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.

F 2003-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-648, Remigio Rivas appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences from 100 years to 75 years for each count. One judge dissented.

F-2002-201

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 5, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-201, Robert Mark Stephens appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and Attempted Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Stephens was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was sentenced to fifteen years for robbery and one year for attempted kidnapping, with the sentences to run one after the other. He raised several issues for appeal. First, he argued that his right to due process was violated because the court did not order a professional examination to check if he was competent to stand trial. However, the court concluded that there were not enough facts to raise a doubt about his competency. Second, Stephens claimed the trial court abused its power by not allowing him to use a mental illness defense. The court found no error in this as Oklahoma law does not allow for a defense of diminished capacity in non-capital cases. Third, he said he did not get a fair trial because the judge did not permit jury instructions on his mental capacity, which he believed was necessary to explain his intent during the crime. The court agreed with the trial court's ruling, saying that there is no provision for mitigating evidence in such trials. Stephens also believed he had ineffective help from his lawyer, but the court found he did not prove this claim. Finally, he said the trial judge wrongly refused to consider concurrent sentences, which led to an abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged this point and modified his sentences so they would run at the same time. In summary, the court upheld the convictions but changed the way the sentences would be served, allowing Stephens to serve his time for both crimes together instead of separately.

C-2002-633

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-633, Russell Snoe appealed his conviction for lewd and indecent proposal to a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Snoe's petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court. One judge dissented. Snoe had entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, where he was sentenced to five years for one charge and one year for the other, with the sentences to be served at the same time if he completed a certain program. Later, Snoe wanted to take back his guilty plea and sent a letter to the court. The court held a hearing but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Snoe argued that he did not have a fair chance because his lawyer did not help him correctly and that he was not given the right information about what the punishment could be. The court reviewed Snoe's case and agreed that he had not been clearly informed about his potential punishment. This mistake made his plea not valid. Since he had taken the plea thinking he faced a worse punishment than he actually could have, the court decided he needed another chance. As a result, the court reversed his earlier decision and allowed him to withdraw his plea.

C-2003-298

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-298, Edward Charles Scott appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and remand the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Edward Charles Scott was charged with two counts of distributing drugs and one count of conspiring to distribute drugs in Stephens County. On November 19, 2001, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 40 years in prison for each count, with the sentences running at the same time, and he was also fined $2,500 for each count. Scott later filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea, claiming that his lawyer did not help him properly. He had a hearing on this motion, but the court refused his request. Scott also filed other motions seeking to remove his guilty pleas and sought help for an appeal later on. The court allowed him an appeal out of time after concluding that his lawyer had not filed the appeal correctly. Scott raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer when he claimed his lawyer wasn’t doing a good job. He also believed he should be allowed to take back his guilty pleas because he didn’t understand everything. He felt his prison sentence was too long and suggested the trial court did not check if he was really able to understand what he was pleading guilty to. Lastly, he argued that there was not enough proof that he was guilty of conspiracy. After reviewing everything, the court decided Scott did not show that his lawyer had a real conflict of interest. There was no evidence that Scott did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, as he admitted his guilt during the processes. The court noted that being unhappy with the length of his sentence was not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found some mixed statements about whether Scott was sentenced as a repeat offender or a first-time offender. These inconsistencies meant the case needed to go back to the lower court for a new sentencing. While the court thought the original inquiry into Scott’s mental competence could have been better, the records showed he was capable of understanding his charges and the guilty pleas he entered. The court also confirmed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the end, the court agreed with some points but decided Scott's case needed to return for resentencing due to the unclear basis for his sentence, even as they upheld the rejection of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

F-2001-528

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.

F-2001-991

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-991, Clayton Armstead appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base) with Intent to Distribute, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction, but modify his sentence. One judge dissented on the modification of the sentence. Armstead faced serious charges after a jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years in prison and a hefty fine. He raised several issues in his appeal, arguing that the jury was given wrong information about his sentence, that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that his lawyer didn’t provide adequate defense. He also claimed his punishment was too harsh. The court carefully reviewed everything from the trial and found that there was indeed a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the possible punishments for his crime. The law stated he could have faced a different range of punishment, and since this legal error was recognized, the court decided to change his sentence to 10 years in prison and a lower fine. While one part of the court agreed with this decision, another judge noted that the jury should have considered a different minimum sentence, and believed that a 24-year sentence would have been more appropriate instead of changing it to 10 years. In conclusion, Armstead kept his conviction, but his sentence was changed to be less severe than what the jury initially decided.

F 2002-1339

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.

F 2001-171

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-171, Emily Dowdy appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Emily Dowdy was found guilty of causing a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. Her trial took place in January 2001, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing ten different points about why her trial was unfair. First, she claimed that she should not have been tried again because of double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the appellate court said that this was not the case here because the state did not purposefully try to get a mistrial. Second, Dowdy wanted to present a defense that she was involuntarily intoxicated, meaning she did not intend to be drunk, but the court ruled that she could not do this, which the appellate court found was a mistake. This mistake was very important and led to the decision to give her a new trial. The appellate court emphasized that everyone has the right to defend themselves and present their story in court, which Dowdy was not allowed to do. The other points raised by Dowdy, such as claims of unfair trial processes, bias from the judge, and other trial errors, were not addressed because the court believed that the preclusion of her intoxication defense was enough to warrant a new trial. In the end, the appellate court said Dowdy should have another opportunity to present her case to a jury where she could defend herself fully. The judge's decision not to allow her intoxication defense to be presented was seen as very serious and unfair, leading the court to reverse the earlier judgment and order a new trial.

C-2001-1425

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.

F-2001-264

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 17, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-264, Gavin Lee Hawkins appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for one count and modify the sentence for the other count. One judge dissented. Gavin Lee Hawkins was found guilty of two counts of lewd molestation in Grady County. The jury sentenced him to serve ten years for the first count and twenty years for the second count, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Hawkins appealed, raising several issues he believed were errors that affected his trial. First, Hawkins argued that the prosecutor made a mistake during her closing arguments, which he thought was serious enough to affect the outcome of the case. The court agreed that the closing argument was improper and decided to change the twenty-year sentence for the second count to ten years. Next, Hawkins claimed that the trial court did not consider all the options when deciding his sentence. However, the court found no evidence that the trial court failed to do its job correctly in this regard. Hawkins also said he should have been allowed to call a witness named Bianca Thomas, but the court decided that the trial judge acted within reason when excluding her from testifying. Lastly, Hawkins felt that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. While the court agreed that his lawyer's performance was not up to standard, they concluded that it did not negatively impact Hawkins's case overall. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision for the first count of lewd molestation and adjusted the sentence for the second count to ten years, while still keeping the sentence structure as ordered by the lower court.

F-2001-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.

F-2001-211

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.