Intent

F-2021-554

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-554, Robert Willie Wilson, Jr. appealed his conviction for accessory to burglary in the second degree and carrying weapons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 (accessory to burglary) with instructions to dismiss the charge, while affirming Count 2 (carrying weapons). One member of the court dissented. The case revolved around Wilson's alleged involvement in a burglary at a laundromat. The jury found him guilty of being an accessory rather than guilty of the burglary itself. They sentenced him to twenty years for the accessory charge and thirty days for carrying a weapon, to be served at the same time as his other sentence. Wilson challenged his conviction, arguing that the evidence was not enough to prove he was an accessory to the burglary. He claimed that the State failed to show he actively concealed or helped another person, named Justin White, who committed the burglary. The law requires that to be an accessory, someone must help the offender escape arrest or punishment after the crime. During the trial, the evidence suggested that while Wilson was present in the vehicle during the time of the burglary, there was no proof that he helped White in any way after the crime. The court pointed out that Wilson's mere presence did not make him guilty. It highlighted that the State only showed he knew about the burglary, which was not enough to convict him as an accessory. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a conviction for accessory to burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they reversed Wilson's conviction for that charge, but they did maintain the conviction for carrying a weapon. The remaining claims in Wilson's appeal were no longer necessary to consider due to this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2021-554

F-2018-302

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-302, Jorge R. Medina appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Medina's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Medina being found guilty by a jury of a serious crime against a young child. The court imposed a severe sentence of forty years imprisonment. Medina raised several arguments in his appeal, claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, issues with his confession, introduction of evidence regarding his past behavior, and ineffective assistance of his attorney. First, Medina argued that the prosecutor made incorrect statements during the trial and suggested that the jury should assume certain things rather than find them to be true based on evidence. However, the court reviewed the prosecutor's comments and determined they did not misstate the law or unfairly influence the jury. Next, Medina claimed he did not fully understand his rights when he confessed, which should have meant that his confession was not valid. But the court found that Medina had waived this right and that the confession was given voluntarily after he understood his rights. Medina also contested the admission of evidence about his past bad acts. The court found that the prosecution had properly notified Medina of this evidence beforehand, so it was admissible. Regarding hearsay statements made by the victim, which were brought up as evidence at the trial, Medina’s team did not object to this during the trial. The court observed that since the defense had been aware of the basis for these statements and did not raise any objections, it affected their ability to contest them later. Moreover, Medina argued his attorney did not provide effective legal help because they did not object to issues during the trial. The court concluded that the alleged deficiencies of the attorney did not impact the outcome of the case due to the strength of the evidence against Medina. Finally, Medina claimed that the accumulation of errors throughout his trial added up to a denial of his rights. However, the court found that the trial did not have enough significant errors to justify this claim. In conclusion, the court upheld Medina's conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the errors he pointed out did not meet the threshold to alter the jury's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-302

F-2018-358

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-358, Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sean Daniel Simmons was found guilty by a jury for hurting his girlfriend on three occasions during a long argument at their apartment. The girlfriend's twelve-year-old son was in a nearby room sleeping at the time. The girlfriend testified that he choked her until she lost consciousness three times. Once, when he called 911, he slapped her when she tried to take the phone. After the incidents, she sought medical help and was diagnosed with a throat injury, although there were no visible marks on her throat, and she didn’t suffer any serious long-term effects. Simmons argued in his first claim that the evidence against him was not enough to support the conviction. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for domestic abuse by strangulation. In his second claim, Simmons believed the trial court should have explained what “great bodily harm” meant to the jury. He wanted a clear definition because he felt the term was too vague. However, the trial court used standard jury instructions that explained the elements of the crime, including how strangulation was defined. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when it refused to define “great bodily harm” more specifically. The decision to not elaborate on this term was appropriate, as the standard instructions already provided enough information to the jury for them to make an informed decision. The judgment was affirmed, and the judges agreed that the trial court acted correctly in these matters.

Continue ReadingF-2018-358

F-2018-221

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-221, Kenneth Merle Hammick, II appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and larceny of an automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. One judge dissented. Kenneth Hammick was convicted of serious crimes. The evidence showed that he broke into a house in Claremore, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2015. He threatened the people inside with a gun and stole a car from one of the victims to escape. He later tried to steal another car but took a pistol instead. The police found him hiding in some bushes the next day. During police questioning, Hammick made statements that suggested he was guilty, even though he initially denied doing anything wrong. After a while, he asked to speak to the police again and confessed to the robbery, even showing them where he had hidden the gun. Hammick's first argument was that the court should not have allowed his confession to be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer. The court decided that since he started talking to the police again, his confession was valid, and he understood what he was doing. Next, Hammick claimed that the way the police identified him was unfair. He said that because he had a neck tattoo, he was easily recognizable in a photo lineup shown to the victims. However, the court found that the victims had a good opportunity to see him during the crime and provided reliable identifications. Lastly, Hammick argued that the court should not have allowed evidence of another crime he committed after the robbery. This was a theft of a gun. The court decided that this evidence was important to provide a complete picture of Hammick's actions and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. In the end, the court upheld Hammick's conviction and did not find any reason to change the original decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-221

M-2018-267

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT AARON RODGERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On January 17, 2017, Appellant was charged in Grady County District Court with Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) in Case No. CM-2017-36. Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial and the Honorable Timothy A. Brauer, Special Judge, sentenced him according to the jury's recommendation to a $1,000 fine. Appellant appeals. Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal: **I.** Mr. Rodgers was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct on his theories of defense. **II.** The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial expert testimony on domestic abuse was plain error entitling Mr. Rodgers to a new trial. **III.** The audio tape sponsored by Cindy Trapp failed to meet the requisites for admissibility. Admission of this evidence denied Mr. Rodgers a fair trial. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I**: Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on defense of another and defense of property. Decisions denying requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Appellant fails to establish that any unlawful interference with his property occurred or was imminent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these instructions. **Proposition II**: Appellant contends that the testimony of Amanda Grayson, an expert on domestic violence, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant did not object to the testimony at trial, waiving appellate review except for plain error. The expert testimony was relevant and provided insight into the victim's behavior and Appellant's intent. Thus, Proposition II is without merit. **Proposition III**: Appellant challenges the admission of a duplicate recording of a conversation based on the best evidence rule. Appellant objected on the basis of relevance rather than the best evidence rule, and thus has waived that issue. No genuine question regarding the authenticity of the duplicate was established, and the trial court took steps to ensure the jury was not misled by the recording. Therefore, Proposition III is denied. **Decision**: The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** ED GEARY **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAVID AUTRY **COUNSEL FOR STATE** NATALIA LEVCHENKO MIKE HUNTER KATHERINE MORELLI **OPINION BY**: KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **RA/F** --- This summary captures the key elements of the case involving Appellant Robert Aaron Rodgers, the propositions of error raised, and the court's analysis and decisions, providing a streamlined understanding of the court's ruling.

Continue ReadingM-2018-267

RE-2017-801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary** **Appellant:** Donald Antwan Mayberry **Appellee:** State of Oklahoma **Case No:** RE-2017-801 **Judges:** John D. Hudson (Chief Judge), Lewis, Kuehn (Vice Chief Judge), Lumpkin, Rowland (Judges) **Date Filed:** April 18, 2019 **Overview:** Donald Antwan Mayberry appealed the full revocation of his ten-year suspended sentences imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Timothy R. Henderson. Mayberry had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, which resulted in concurrent ten-year suspended sentences under probation. **Revocation Proceedings:** The State filed an application to revoke Mayberry's suspended sentences, alleging several violations, including: 1. Committing new crimes (including Manufacturing or Possessing an Explosive Device). 2. Using methamphetamine while on probation. 3. Failing to pay probation fees. 4. Driving while his license was suspended. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence from law enforcement officers and Mayberry’s probation officer. Notable testimony included: - Sergeant Anthony Lee described a traffic stop of Mayberry's vehicle, where he discovered drugs and an ammo box containing bomb components. - Scott Dawson, a bomb technician, testified about the nature of the device found, indicating it could function as an improvised explosive device (IED). - Probation officer Brooke LeFlore reported Mayberry’s positive drug test for methamphetamine. Mayberry did not present any evidence in his defense. Judge Henderson concluded that Mayberry violated probation terms by committing the new crimes and using drugs, leading to the full revocation of his suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Insufficient Evidence for Manufacturing an Explosive Device:** - Mayberry argued that the State failed to establish his intent to use the bomb or to send it to another person, as required by statute. - The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to infer intent to intimidate or unlawfully damage property, and that one proven violation of probation was enough to justify revocation. 2. **Abuse of Discretion in Revocation Decision:** - Mayberry contended that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his sentence in full, arguing that the punishment was excessive. - The court maintained that the presence of bomb-making materials and other violations substantiated the revocation decision. **Conclusion:** The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Mayberry's ten-year concurrent suspended sentences in full, finding that the evidence was adequate to support the conclusions of the trial judge. **Final Order:** Appellant's revocation of suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued. **Counsel for Appellant:** Pierce Winters, Marva A. Banks (Oklahoma County Public Defender’s Office) **Counsel for Appellee:** Kelly Collins, Mike Hunter (assistant district attorneys); Theodore M. Peeper (assistant attorney general) **Opinion Issued By:** Judge Hudson **Concurrences:** Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Rowland each concurred with the decision. [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-801_1734709994.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2017-801

F-2017-724

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-724

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

F-2015-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-933, Thompson appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed the judgment on Count 3 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty of three crimes related to stolen property after a jury trial. He was sentenced to six years in prison for unauthorized use of a vehicle and eight years for each count of concealing stolen property. The sentences were arranged so that the two eight-year sentences would run together, while the six-year sentence would be added afterward. He was also fined $100 for each offense. Thompson raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that he should not have been convicted twice for concealing stolen property. He believed that since he acted only once when hiding the stolen items, charging him with two counts was unfair. The court agreed with him on this point and found that it was a mistake to have separate charges for items taken from different people. Next, Thompson questioned whether there was enough proof to find him guilty of unauthorized vehicle use and concealing stolen property. The court looked at all the evidence and decided there was enough to support his guilty verdict for unauthorized use of a vehicle, so that part of his conviction was upheld. Thompson also claimed that the prosecution made mistakes during the trial that harmed his chance for a fair judgment. However, the court did not find these errors serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. On the fines imposed by the trial court, Thompson argued that judges can't add fines unless the jury decides to. The court determined that the fines were allowed since the law permitted judges to impose them, even if the jury did not. Thompson felt that the judge shouldn't have made him serve the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 back-to-back after the first sentence. However, the court found that the judge's decision was within his rights and not an abuse of discretion. Overall, the court decided that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to change Thompson’s convictions except for the second count of concealing stolen property, which was dismissed. They confirmed that the remaining counts were properly upheld, leading to affirmation of most of Thompson's convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-933

F-2014-1100

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-1100, Kenshari Andre Graham appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty of murdering Alec McGlory while trying to rob him at gunpoint for illegal drugs. The jury recommended that he serve life in prison, and the trial court agreed with this sentence. During the appeal, Graham argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the State to introduce evidence of another crime he committed—a burglary that took place two days after the murder. He believed this should not have been allowed because it did not relate to the murder case. The court reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial to determine if it was appropriate. Normally, evidence of other crimes is not allowed to prove that someone is guilty of the crime they are charged with. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. One exception is if the other crime is closely connected to the crime being charged, which can help to explain it better. In this case, the burglary and the murder were separate events that happened in different places and times. The burglary did not relate to the drug robbery that led to McGlory's murder. The trial court had allowed the burglary evidence in part to show a possible consciousness of guilt, or that Graham was trying to escape the legal consequences of his actions. The court explained that evidence of fleeing can sometimes be used to support the idea that someone is guilty, but they needed to be careful about how it is used. Despite admitting that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the burglary evidence, the court did not believe that this mistake had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict Graham. The jury also heard strong evidence from two witnesses who testified that Graham confessed to the murder, along with other evidence connecting him to the crime. The judges concluded that the jury likely made their decision based on this solid evidence, and not just the burglary evidence. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges had doubts about whether the court would have given Graham the maximum sentence of life in prison if they hadn’t considered the burglary. Because of this, the court decided to send the case back to the District Court to determine a proper sentence without considering the improperly admitted evidence. Overall, while Graham's conviction remained in place, the judges recognized the need to reevaluate his sentence without the influence of the wrongful entry of evidence from the burglary case.

Continue ReadingF-2014-1100

F-2013-11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.

Continue ReadingF-2013-11

S-2013-483

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-483, the defendant appealed his conviction for various crimes involving minors, including sodomy, lewd acts, and sexual battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain evidence. One judge dissented from this decision. Thomas Bradley Porton was charged with serious crimes against children. The crimes included sodomy and other lewd acts, as well as providing alcohol to minors and possessing indecent photographs. These charges were based on incidents that occurred in McCurtain County. During the pretrial, the State wanted to use photographs found on Porton's computer as evidence. However, the judge ruled that these photographs could not be used in court. The State believed that the photos were important to prove their case against Porton. They argued that the photographs showed a pattern of behavior that related to the crimes he was charged with. The State appealed the judge's decision to keep the photographs out of the trial. They said that their ability to prove Porton's guilt was greatly affected without this evidence. The law allows the State to appeal when evidence is excluded if it is believed to be in the interests of justice. However, the court found that the State did not show that the photographs were a critical part of the evidence needed to prove the case. Because of this, the appeal was denied, meaning the photographs would not be part of the trial. The ruling pointed out that the trial judge had looked closely at the case and had reasonable grounds to decide that the photographs were not relevant or that their potential to cause unfair problems outweighed their usefulness as evidence. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion. He felt that the photographs should not have been excluded because they could help prove Porton's motive and intent regarding the charges. He argued that evidence of other actions taken by the defendant should have been considered, especially since there were connections between the photographs and the charges against Porton. In summary, the court upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, impacting the State's case against Porton, while one judge believed this decision was incorrect and would have allowed the evidence.

Continue ReadingS-2013-483

F-2012-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-567

S-2011-0801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0801

F-2010-307

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2010-307

F-2008-434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-434, Dusty Ray McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Dusty Ray McGee was found guilty of murdering a homeless man named John Seeley after a brutal attack. The attack happened when McGee and others returned to an abandoned apartment complex where Seeley was staying. They confronted him because they were stealing metal from the site. During this attack, McGee, along with his accomplices, kicked and hit Seeley multiple times with different objects. After the assault, they took pictures of the injured Seeley, who was still alive at that time. McGee was arrested a few days later and admitted to being part of the attack but claimed he didn't intend to kill Seeley. He mentioned that he wanted to call an ambulance afterward but was threatened by one of his accomplices. During McGee's trial, there were several issues. The jury asked many questions that showed they were confused about what made a crime first or second-degree murder and how sentencing worked. The judge didn’t handle these questions properly and didn’t bring the jurors back to discuss their worries in front of everyone. This made it hard for the jury to understand everything they needed to know to make a fair decision. The court acknowledged that the improper handling of the jury's questions likely impacted McGee's rights to a fair trial. Because of these errors, the court reversed McGee's conviction and ordered a new trial, suggesting that the previous trial did not follow the required legal procedures properly.

Continue ReadingF-2008-434

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015

F-2005-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1161

F-2014-478

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-478, David Glen Heard appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. David Glen Heard was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation after being tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 15, 2006, when Heard was observed behaving inappropriately towards two young girls at a Walmart store. He followed them around the store and attempted to look under their dresses. Witnesses reported his unsettling behavior, and he was later found with a pornographic magazine in his car and identified as a registered sex offender. At the time of the incident, he was on probation for previous sex-related offenses against children. During the trial, testimonies from various witnesses were presented, including a woman who testified about a similar incident involving Heard from years prior. Evidence was admitted under the law to show motive and absence of mistake, which supported the prosecution's case against him. Heard raised several arguments during his appeal, including claims that the statute he was convicted under was vague, the admission of other testimonies was inappropriate, and errors in jury instructions and the failure of his counsel to object to certain evidence. The court found that the law did not provide for a vagueness claim since Heard's actions clearly violated the statute in question. The admission of prior testimonies was ruled permissible as relevant to the case. The trial court’s instructions were also deemed not harmful to the verdict. However, the court recognized an error when ordering post-imprisonment supervision, as it was not authorized for the crimes Heard committed at the time. Thus, while his conviction was confirmed, the order for post-imprisonment supervision was vacated. Ultimately, Heard’s two twenty-year sentences were upheld due to the nature of his actions and background as a repeat offender.

Continue ReadingF-2014-478

F 2004-1182

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1182

F-2001-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2001-651

F-2000-1262

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1262, Robert Anthony Lamar appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Robert Anthony Lamar was found guilty by a jury of taking a U-Haul truck without permission. He claimed he only wanted to drive the truck to see what it felt like and intended to return it right after. The jury believed that he did not intend to keep the truck permanently, but the trial court did not let the jury consider a possible lesser charge of joyriding. Lamar raised several points in his appeal. He argued that it was unfair for the court to give the instructions it did without his request and that there wasn’t enough proof to show he meant to keep the truck. But the main issue was that he should have been able to have a chance to be judged on the lesser offense of joyriding, since his actions matched that claim too. The court found that joyriding was indeed a valid option for the jury to consider, and since the jury’s decision did not support the idea of him wanting to permanently take the truck, he deserved a fair chance to contest the lesser charge. Because of this, the court ruled that the prior judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1262