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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a place for selling drugs were reversed and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. 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. 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. F-2001-991, Clayton Armstead appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base) with Intent to Distribute, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction, but modify his sentence. One judge dissented on the modification of the sentence. Armstead faced serious charges after a jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years in prison and a hefty fine. He raised several issues in his appeal, arguing that the jury was given wrong information about his sentence, that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that his lawyer didn’t provide adequate defense. He also claimed his punishment was too harsh. The court carefully reviewed everything from the trial and found that there was indeed a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the possible punishments for his crime. The law stated he could have faced a different range of punishment, and since this legal error was recognized, the court decided to change his sentence to 10 years in prison and a lower fine. While one part of the court agreed with this decision, another judge noted that the jury should have considered a different minimum sentence, and believed that a 24-year sentence would have been more appropriate instead of changing it to 10 years. In conclusion, Armstead kept his conviction, but his sentence was changed to be less severe than what the jury initially decided.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-998, Gene Doyle Smothermon appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent To Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction while modifying the sentence to 30 years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Gene Doyle Smothermon was found guilty of having methamphetamine and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. The jury first suggested he should go to prison for 75 years, but the judge decided he would serve 30 years instead. Smothermon appealed because he believed there were many mistakes made during his trial. Smothermon raised several issues during his appeal: 1. He argued that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and weak. 2. He said the trial court should have allowed his investigator to testify, claiming this took away his right to present his defense. 3. He felt the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. 4. He claimed the prosecutor made improper statements during the trial. 5. He thought his punishment was too harsh. 6. He believed that many errors added up to cause unfairness in his case. 7. Lastly, he asked the court to fix mistakes in the records about his guilty pleas for less serious charges. The court carefully looked over all the information from the trial, including evidence and arguments. They found that the trial did not make serious mistakes. They agreed that the evidence, including a dog alerting to drugs found in Smothermon's car, was relevant and did connect him to the case. They also ruled that not allowing the defense investigator to testify was reasonable since the investigator was disclosed too late in the trial process. They noted that while the prosecutor made some mistakes in his closing arguments, they were not serious enough to make the trial unfair. The most important point was that the judge was right to lower the original sentence from 75 years to 30 years, which they believed was more appropriate for the crime. In the end, the court confirmed Smothermon's conviction and changed his sentence to 30 years. They also decided that the trial court should correct the records to show the true details of his guilty plea for lesser charges. One judge did not agree with this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1634, Edgar Lee Rucker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Rucker was found guilty by a jury for selling methamphetamine and was sentenced to twelve years in prison along with a $10,000 fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to marijuana possession. Rucker argued several points in his appeal, claiming violations of his rights during the trial. The first point raised was that it was wrong for both the drug offense and habitual offender statutes to be used in his sentencing. The court acknowledged this as an error but stated that it only affected the fine; they reduced the fine to $2,500 since it was incorrectly calculated originally. Rucker also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a habitual offender. However, the court found that the State provided enough evidence regarding his past convictions. He claimed that evidence about his previous bad behavior should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court determined it was relevant for understanding the case. Rucker believed that there was a mismatch between the charges and the evidence, but the court concluded the evidence was consistent with the allegations. Another argument was that his lawyer didn’t do a good job representing him. They noted that while the lawyer should have objected more, it didn’t significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Rucker contended that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, but the court found that any mistakes made were corrected and did not deny him a fair trial. Finally, Rucker argued that all the errors combined made the trial unfair, but the court decided that the only significant error was the fine and adjusted it accordingly. In summary, the court upheld Rucker’s prison sentence but modified the fine.
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-2000-483, Debra Gorrell appealed her conviction for several drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of Gorrell's convictions but affirmed the others. One judge dissented. Debra Gorrell was found guilty of crimes including unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and other drug-related charges. She was sentenced to a total of many years in prison. During her appeal, Gorrell raised several arguments against her convictions. Gorrell argued that the court shouldn't have allowed evidence about her past crimes. She also said she was punished too many times for the same actions and claimed that part of the law used against her was unfair. She disputed the evidence stating she had methamphetamine in front of a child, claimed the testimonies used against her weren't reliable, and said the jury wasn't properly instructed about the crimes. The court reviewed all arguments and found that most of Gorrell's claims did not hold up. They decided that the evidence against her was strong enough for the other convictions. However, they found that Gorrell's conviction for maintaining a dwelling for drug use was not fair, and this conviction was reversed. In the end, the court upheld her other convictions but ordered a new trial for the one related to maintaining a dwelling for drug use.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1654, Damean Ortego Tillis appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the first conviction to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana and reduce the sentence to one year of imprisonment, which would be served consecutively with the sentence for the firearm charge. One judge dissented. Tillis was tried by jury in Caddo County and found guilty of both charges. The jury recommended a ten-year sentence for the marijuana charge and a twenty-year sentence for the firearm charge. The judge agreed to these sentences and ordered them to be served back-to-back. Tillis raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, including admitting evidence of his previous conviction and not allowing a separate trial for the firearm charge. He claimed this hurt his chances for a fair trial. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to prove he intended to distribute marijuana and that his sentence was too harsh. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by admitting evidence of Tillis's past conviction during the first part of the trial. This was against the rules because the laws say only certain previous convictions should be shared at certain stages of the trial. However, the court decided that, even with this mistake, the evidence against Tillis for possessing marijuana was strong enough to still uphold his conviction, but it should be changed to a less serious charge. For the second point, the court found no error in not telling the jury about a lack of knowledge defense regarding the firearm. They said there was no evidence to support that claim. On the third point, they agreed there wasn't enough evidence to show he wanted to distribute marijuana, so they modified that conviction to simple possession, which is less serious. Lastly, they said the sentences were not extreme, so the decision on the firearm charge stayed unchanged. In summary, Tillis's conviction for marijuana possession was lessened, and his sentence was adjusted, but the firearm conviction was maintained as originally sentenced.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M 99-0569, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Two judges dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1260, Carl Ray Holmes appealed his conviction for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for the first two counts but reversed the marijuana possession conviction, ordering a new trial for that count. One judge dissented regarding the second count, suggesting it should be dismissed due to double jeopardy concerns.
In OCCA case No. F-99-1652, Mickey Lee Cosar appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided that his termination from the Drug Court program was not handled correctly and mandated a new termination hearing with proper notice. One judge dissented. The case began when Cosar entered a blind plea to the drug charges in September 1998 as part of a condition to join the Drug Court program, which allows individuals to receive treatment instead of immediate punishment. However, during the process, certain legal requirements were not met. A hearing in April 1999 determined that Cosar should be removed from the Drug Court program, which led to a sentencing hearing in May 1999 where he was sentenced to life in prison despite not having any prior serious convictions. On appeal, Cosar argued that he was denied due process because he was improperly arrested, was not given proper notice of the charges against him, and was not presented a fair hearing before a judge. He contended that his sentence was too harsh given his background and that it was improperly based on unproven allegations. The court found merit in Cosar’s claims. It noted that he did not receive written notice of the termination hearing, which is necessary, and that his due process rights were violated. The court emphasized that to follow proper legal procedures, a new hearing must be held where Cosar would receive notice of the reasons for his termination from the Drug Court. This notice must be clear enough for him to prepare a defense. Moreover, the court stated that the sentencing hearing was flawed because the judge considered improper evidence and unsworn testimony. The judge based the harsh life sentence on matters unrelated to the charges for which Cosar was convicted, including knowledge of allegations of a rape and murder that were not properly vetted in court. The decision noted that a judge should only consider evidence presented during the formal hearing process, which did not happen here. The court’s ruling ordered a new termination and, if necessary, a new sentencing hearing to be conducted by a different judge who would base the decision solely on the evidence presented appropriately. The conclusion stressed the importance of following the law to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, particularly within programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders. In summary, Cosar’s appeal highlighted the need for proper legal procedures in termination and sentencing hearings, emphasizing the rights of defendants to fair treatment under the law.