In OCCA case No. C-2010-1060, Carlos David Oliver appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked, and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal in part and grant it in part. The court reversed and dismissed two of the charges: assault with a dangerous weapon and resisting arrest. The dissenting opinion was noted but did not specify details.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.