In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-184, Kenneth Kelmer Jackson appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First-Degree Murder and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Accessory After the Fact but reversed the conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Kenneth was found guilty of helping someone after a murder had taken place and for hiding stolen items. The jury said he should go to prison for 14 years for the murder accessory charge and 5 years for the second charge, which would be served one after the other. On appeal, Kenneth argued that he should not be punished for both crimes since they came from the same act. The court agreed with him on this point and reversed the second conviction. Though they looked at his other claims about the trial not being fair, they decided they did not change the outcome of the case. In the end, the court said he could remain guilty of being an accessory to murder, but the charge regarding hiding stolen property was removed. One judge disagreed with part of this decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-808, Milton Veran Williams appealed his conviction for distribution and possession of crack cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a place for selling drugs were reversed and dismissed, but his conviction for distribution was affirmed with a reduced fine. One judge dissented, believing the entry into Williams' home was justified under exigent circumstances.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-537, a person appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts while keeping the other counts affirmed. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The plea agreement allowed for a one-year suspended sentence if he completed a drug court program. However, he later violated the terms of this agreement by using drugs again and not attending the required sessions, leading to a longer sentence. After the court sentenced him to a total of 21 years in prison for the remaining counts, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued he did not fully understand what he was agreeing to, specifically the length of his sentences and various conditions. In reviewing the case, the court found a significant issue with the individual's dual convictions for possessing two kinds of drugs at the same time, which they ruled could violate double jeopardy rules. They agreed with part of his appeal and reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana, while affirming the other two convictions.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.