In OCCA case No. F 2003-193, Walter Lacurtis Jones appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse, second and subsequent offense. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to one year in the county jail and a fine of fifteen hundred dollars. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1428, Henry C. Flowers, Jr. appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Flowers' conviction but remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Flowers was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His appeal included two main points of error. The first point was that he believed there wasn't enough proof that he made a false declaration to a licensed pawnbroker. He argued that since the employee who helped him at the pawnshop was not a licensed pawnbroker, his actions should not count as a crime. However, the court explained that the law only requires the pawnshop owner to be licensed, not every employee. Therefore, the court felt there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Flowers committed the crime. The second point raised by Flowers was about how the judge handled his sentence. The judge seemed unsure whether he could make Flowers' twenty-year sentence run at the same time as another sentence he already had. The court explained that judges do have the authority to run sentences concurrently and that not knowing this could be an abuse of discretion. Because of this, the case was sent back to the lower court for the judge to review the sentencing again. Overall, the court upheld Flowers' conviction but said the judge needs to reassess how to handle the sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1470, Wafford appealed his conviction for several crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm part of the convictions and reverse one of them. One judge dissented. Michael Orlando Wafford was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and concealing stolen property. The jury gave him a total of fifty-five years in prison for these crimes. There were several issues that Wafford raised in his appeal. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction for possessing a gun while committing a felony and that the evidence for trafficking was also weak. The court, however, found that the evidence was enough to show that Wafford had control over the drugs found and that there was a connection between the gun and the drug crimes. Next, Wafford pointed out that it was unfair to charge him with two different crimes because of the same gun. The court agreed, sending back instructions to dismiss the conviction for concealing stolen property since it stemmed from the same act of having the gun. Wafford also claimed that some evidence during the trial was unfair to him and that he did not get a fair trial because of it. The court found that the objections raised did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court upheld the conviction for trafficking and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony, concluding that the evidence supported those charges. However, they also ruled that Wafford's conviction for concealing stolen property was not valid and ordered it to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for various crimes related to drug possession and firearm offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for selling drugs. One judge dissented and suggested that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including possession of controlled substances and shooting with intent to kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed the conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences but reversed one specific conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for illegal activities. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The petitioner had pled guilty to various charges in three different cases. These included serious charges like possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, gun-related offenses, and other crimes. After he was sentenced, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The court held a hearing to consider this request but denied it. The sentences the petitioner received added up to a very long total of 223 years, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, the petitioner presented several reasons he felt the court made mistakes. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence for some of his guilty pleas to be accepted. After looking into the facts, the court disagreed on some counts, saying there was enough evidence for certain guilty pleas, but accepted the petitioner’s claim that he should not have been convicted for maintaining a vehicle for drug activities. In another part of his argument, the petitioner claimed that his punishments were too much and that he did not understand his pleas. The court found that he did understand what he was doing and therefore, his guilty pleas were valid. Overall, the court upheld most of the judgments but agreed with the petitioner on one specific charge, reversing that conviction. The court ordered the case to go back for further actions that align with its decision. One judge thought sentences should be served together instead of separately, showing that there were different opinions even in the court's decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-233, Stephen Eldridge Melonakis appealed his conviction for falsely personating another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to reflect credit for time served awaiting trial. One judge dissented, arguing that the trial court's decision should have been upheld without modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-552, Jack Leroy Helms appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Obscene Pictures of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Helms's conviction but to modify his sentence to two years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Helms was tried by a jury and found guilty of having illegal pictures of minors. The trial took place in Jefferson County. The jury recommended a 15-year sentence, and the trial judge sentenced Helms accordingly. However, Helms argued that he should have been charged under a different law that applied specifically to possession of child pornography, which would result in a shorter sentence. The court agreed that Helms should have been charged under the more specific statute, but they affirmed his conviction. They also decided that his imprisonment sentence should be reduced to two years instead of the original 15 years. Helms raised several issues during his appeal, claiming that he was unfairly treated during the trial, that there wasn't enough evidence against him, and that his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold his conviction, as there were witnesses and online activities that indicated he had access to the illegal pictures. In the end, Helms's conviction was upheld, but changes were made to the judgment to show he was convicted under the correct law and his sentence was adjusted to be less severe. The decision allowed some correction but ultimately found in favor of the prosecution's case against Helms.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1444, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd offense) and Driving While Privilege Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and ordered a new trial with proper instructions. The judgment for Driving While Privilege Suspended was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-203, Kristy Ladell Thompson appealed her conviction for robbery with a weapon, conspiracy, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy but reversed the conviction for assault and battery, directing that it be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction, believing there wasn't enough evidence to support it.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-692, William Ray Pratt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for most counts but reversed one count due to lack of evidence. One member of the court dissented. Pratt was found guilty of several serious crimes against a child and was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison, with the sentences for each count set to run one after the other. He challenged his conviction on several grounds, which were carefully reviewed by the court. First, Pratt argued that evidence of other crimes against him should not have been allowed in the trial. The court found that this evidence was considered appropriate because it showed similar behavior. Next, Pratt claimed there were mistakes made during the trial that hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court disagreed, saying that the mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of his trial. Finally, Pratt mentioned that there was not enough evidence for one of the counts against him. The court agreed with this, stating that the required proof of penetration was missing for that specific count, leading them to reverse the conviction for that charge and instruct the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, while Pratt's appeal was partially successful, the court upheld most of his convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-444, Eric Anthony Rivera appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Kidnapping conviction and instructed to dismiss it, while affirming the conviction for Domestic Abuse. One judge dissented. Eric was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious charges: Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. The jury gave him a ten-year prison sentence for Kidnapping and a one-year jail sentence for Domestic Abuse, which will be served at the same time. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support that Eric truly intended to kidnap the victim secretly. Because of this, the court said that the conviction for Kidnapping should be reversed, meaning they didn't agree with that part of the trial's decision. They felt Eric didn’t get a fair chance regarding that charge because the evidence didn’t meet the legal requirements. However, they found that the case against him for Domestic Abuse still stood strong and was supported by sufficient evidence, so they kept that conviction in place. The judges on the appeal discussed their different opinions about the case, with one agreeing with the majority, while others felt that the Kidnapping conviction should have stayed based on the evidence presented. In the end, the court's decision meant Eric would no longer be punished for Kidnapping but would still serve his sentence for Domestic Abuse.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1230, a person appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The person, who was found guilty of trying to break into a garage, admitted to the police that he was looking for tools to fix his car. However, the court determined that this was not a good enough reason to justify his actions in attempting to commit burglary, so the evidence supported his conviction. The appellant raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction, and claimed that two of his previous convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence, came from the same incident. He also argued that the introduction of some unfair evidence during the trial and the instruction given to the jury resulted in a higher sentence than warranted. Another point of contention was that a new law reducing penalties for certain non-violent offenders should apply to him. However, the court found that this new law could not be applied to his case because it was not stated that it should apply to past cases. Finally, he claimed that the cumulative errors in his trial affected the fairness of the verdict, but the court found that the only issue that warranted a change was the irrelevant evidence that influenced the length of his sentence. In summary, the court agreed that some aspects of the trial weren't fair, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years instead of thirty, but it upheld the conviction itself.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1170, Willie West King, Jr. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation of a Child Under Sixteen Years Old. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Count I but reversed the conviction for Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence for Count I, suggesting it should be modified to 20 years. Willie West King, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of lewd molestation after a trial in Texas County. The jury gave a punishment of 65 years for each count, and these sentences were to be served one after the other. King appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the jury instruction on the crime had a serious mistake because it left out an important part that should have been included. However, the court found that even though this was a mistake, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial because other parts of the instructions were clear. Second, King argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the second count against him. The court agreed, saying that the evidence really showed an attempt rather than a completed act of lewdness. Therefore, they reversed that part of the conviction and said it should be dismissed. Third, King felt that the court should have told the jury they needed to have another witness to back up the victim's claim. The court disagreed, stating that the victim’s testimony was believable, and did not need another person to support it. Fourth, King thought that the jury should have been informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found that this wasn’t necessary in this case because the law didn’t require it. They also decided that the prosecutor’s comments during the trial didn’t unfairly influence the jury’s decision. Fifth, King raised a concern about evidence from Texas being allowed in without proper proof. However, the court found that the evidence was correctly shown as valid. Lastly, King argued that all the mistakes in his trial together made it unfair for him. The court concluded that while there were some errors, they were not serious enough to have denied him a fair trial. In summary, the court upheld King’s conviction on Count I but found that Count II was not supported by enough evidence, so it was reversed and dismissed. One judge disagreed with the long sentence for Count I, believing it was too harsh and should be lowered to 20 years instead of 65 years.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-278, Kirk appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon were affirmed, while the conviction for Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Kirk was found guilty after an incident on January 24, 2000, where he lived with Reva Gail Sweetin. That night, Kirk's friend, Billy Whiting, visited them. After drinking alcohol, Whiting became very drunk and fell off the couch multiple times. Sweetin tried to help him, but Kirk later emerged with a knife and attacked both Sweetin and Whiting, ultimately fatally stabbing Whiting. Kirk raised several arguments during his appeal. First, he claimed the evidence was not enough to support his convictions, arguing that the witnesses who testified against him were not credible. However, the court found that the evidence supported the jury's decision. Second, Kirk argued that being convicted of both Domestic Abuse and Assault and Battery was unfair because both were for the same action. The court agreed with this point and decided to dismiss the Domestic Abuse conviction. Kirk also claimed that the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for Sweetin's credibility during closing arguments. The court concluded that these comments did not indicate the prosecutor's personal opinion but were a response to the defense's arguments. Another concern raised by Kirk was about other crimes evidence that the prosecutor brought up regarding his ex-wife, but the court determined that the jury was properly instructed to disregard it. Kirk argued that he should have received instructions about the witness's past bad acts. While the court agreed this was a mistake, they believed it did not significantly affect the trial's outcome due to the strong evidence against him. Lastly, Kirk claimed the overall errors during the trial were enough to warrant a new trial. However, since the court had already determined that one of his convictions should be reversed, they found there were no additional grounds for relief. In summary, the court upheld the murder and assault convictions, dismissed the domestic abuse charge, ensuring a focus on the primary acts Kirk committed during the incident.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-651, Vadell Lamont Wright appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions. One judge dissented. Wright was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of twenty years for the unauthorized use of a vehicle and twenty-five years for using a vehicle in connection with the discharge of a firearm, with both sentences to be served one after the other. He decided to appeal his convictions. The court reviewed several claims raised by Wright regarding his trial. The main issues included: 1. Seeing the defendant in handcuffs could have influenced the jury. 2. There was not enough evidence to say that Wright used the vehicle to make the shooting easier. 3. The court did not allow the defendant to explain his belief that he was allowed to use the car, known as a defense of mistake. 4. Evidence about other crimes affected Wright's right to a fair trial. 5. Communication between the jury and the trial judge was improper. 6. The trial court made mistakes regarding immunity for a co-defendant. 7. The jury was not given the option of lesser charges. 8. Overall, multiple errors deprived Wright of a fair trial. Focusing on the second issue, the court noted that Wright used a stolen vehicle to flee from police. He was in the vehicle with another person who fired a gun at an officer during the chase. However, the court found that simply using the car did not meet the legal requirement that it had to help make the shooting occur. There wasn’t enough evidence to show that the act of using the car was linked to the shooting directly. Additionally, in regards to possible mistakes about using the vehicle, the trial court's instructions did not help the jury understand what was being asked about having permission to use the car. Wright believed he had permission from the person who was with him and thought he could use the vehicle, but the trial court did not clearly explain this possibility to the jury. As a result, the court decided to reverse Wright's conviction for shooting from a vehicle and dismissed that charge. They also decided to send the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle charge back for a new trial, stating that the earlier jury did not get all the right information to make a fair decision. In conclusion, the court found that Wright should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented and that he deserved a chance to argue his case again in a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.
In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.
In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1652, Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance but reversed and dismissed the count for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. One judge dissented. The case began when authorities found evidence suggesting Sprowls was making illegal drugs, which led to his trial. The jury found him guilty and recommended a long prison sentence along with fines. Sprowls argued that this evidence should not have been used because it was collected without a proper search warrant. He also claimed that he was unfairly punished multiple times for the same act, which violated his rights. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that Sprowls was punished twice for the same crime, so they reversed the second conviction and removed the fine associated with it. However, they determined that the evidence for the first charge was enough to support the jury's decision and that his sentence was fair. Ultimately, the court affirmed part of the decision but corrected what they saw as an error in punishing him.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.