In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-281, Lori Jo Schram appealed her conviction for Possession of Precursor Substances with the Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One member of the court dissented. Lori Jo Schram was found guilty by a jury in Grady County after the police found items related to methamphetamine production at a trailer. The jury decided that she should go to prison for ten years, but five years would be suspended, along with a fine of $10,000. The court also said she needed to pay $2,544.46 to the victim. On appeal, Schram raised several points for why she thought her conviction should be reversed. First, she said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a motion to suppress evidence. She argued the police obtained a search warrant through an illegal search. However, the court explained that an officer was invited to the property and found suspicious items in plain view. Therefore, the court said the search was legal and that the trial court did not make an error. Second, Schram claimed that the prosecution did things that were unfair and that these actions affected her sentence. The court looked at the instances she mentioned and noted that the trial judge told the jury to ignore any improper comments from the prosecutor. The court believed this helped fix any potential errors, and since Schram received a light sentence, the issues raised did not impact it. Finally, Schram argued that the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay was wrong because she was not convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, only possession. The court agreed that the trial court did not properly determine the restitution amount based on the guidelines, so they decided to vacate that order and send it back to the trial court for a proper assessment. Overall, the court upheld the conviction but changed the restitution order, making it necessary for the trial court to reassess how much Schram owed.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.