In OCCA case No. F-2019-420, Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Davis's judgment and sentence, meaning he would no longer be convicted of the crimes he was charged with. The court also instructed for the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented from the majority opinion.
In the case of William G. Epperly v. The State of Oklahoma (Case No. F-2018-1144), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court of Oklahoma County. The court found that the evidence presented during Epperly's trial was admissible, and his claims of error, including issues related to hearsay, relevance, and jury instructions, did not warrant reversal of his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. ### Key Points from the Court's Decision: 1. **Admission of Excited Utterance Evidence**: The court found that statements made by Tiffany Epperly (Epperly's spouse) to two witnesses fell under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, as she was under emotional stress when she reported witnessing the alleged abuse. 2. **Text Messages and Witness Testimony**: The court ruled that reading text messages sent by Sutphen to Tiffany Epperly was not hearsay because they were used to challenge Tiffany's credibility rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, the testimony about Tiffany's changing demeanor was deemed relevant to the case. 3. **Witness Reading from Police Report**: Former Officer Richardson's reading from his police report, which included Tiffany Epperly's statements, was allowed because it served to impeach her trial testimony, not as hearsay. 4. **Internet Search Evidence**: The court deemed the evidence concerning Epperly's internet search about Oklahoma sex laws to be relevant, as it could suggest a consciousness of guilt. 5. **Judgment and Sentence Corrections**: The court noted that the issues regarding credit for time served and the $100 fine were resolved with an amended judgment, making that claim moot. 6. **Jury Instruction on Sex Offender Registration**: The court did not find that the failure to instruct the jury about sex offender registration constituted an error warranting relief, consistent with prior rulings. 7. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: The court concluded that no individual errors occurred that would justify reversal and therefore found no merit in the cumulative error claim. ### Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that all claims raised by Epperly were without merit. The decision illustrates the court's adherence to evidentiary rules and its support for the discretion exercised by the trial judge in admitting evidence. For more detailed information, the full opinion can be accessed [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1144_1734787047.pdf).
Here’s a summary of the case involving Johnny Aldric Samples, III, as presented in the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma: **Case Overview:** - **Appellant:** Johnny Aldric Samples, III - **Charges:** Four counts of Child Sexual Abuse, violating Oklahoma law (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E)). - **Trial Outcome:** Convicted by jury; sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, with sentences to run consecutively. - **Appeal Filed Against:** The judgment and sentence. **Propositions of Error Raised by the Appellant:** 1. **Admission of Hearsay Statements:** Claims the trial court improperly admitted hearsay from child witnesses, arguing B.L. did not meet the disability requirement for hearsay exceptions. 2. **Admission of Irrelevant Evidence:** Contends the trial court admitted prejudicial evidence related to B.L.'s mother's suicide. 3. **Insufficient Evidence (B.L.):** Argues there was inadequate evidence of sexual abuse against B.L. 4. **Insufficient Evidence (C.L.):** Claims insufficient evidence to support convictions for sexually abusing C.L. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Suggests his counsel failed to properly object to hearsay statements regarding B.L. 6. **Cumulative Errors:** Argues that the cumulative effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Contends the trial court abused its discretion by ordering sentences to run consecutively, claiming it results in an excessive sentence. **Court's Analysis and Decisions:** - The court found no merit in the claims regarding hearsay evidence or the sufficiency of evidence relating to both B.L. and C.L. The analysis included verifying B.L.'s status as a disabled child, which justified the admission of her hearsay statements. - Though the court acknowledged an error in admitting evidence related to B.L.'s mother's suicide, it deemed the error harmless, as overwhelming evidence supported the convictions. - The court concluded that the convictions against C.L. were also adequately supported by credible testimony. - Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found no deficiency since no errors were present in the trial. - The cumulative error argument was rejected as no single error warranted reversal. - Finally, the court supported the trial court's sentencing decision, stating the consecutive sentences aligned with the nature of the offenses. **Conclusion:** The judgment and sentence against Johnny Aldric Samples, III, were affirmed, with the court finding no errors that warranted relief. **Concurrence:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn expressed disagreement with the constitutionality of the child sexual abuse statute but concurred in results based on existing law. He noted a significant change in the law due to a recent decision (A.O. v State) affecting jury instructions in similar cases and criticized the denial of a supplemental brief based on this change. For more detailed information, you can reference the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-850_1735154293.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-830, Cody Wayne Mayfield appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and failure to stop at a red light. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Count 2 and remand with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming the other counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Mayfield being found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance and one count of failure to stop at a red light. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and ten days in jail for the traffic violation. Mayfield raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that being convicted for two types of possession from the same incident violated double jeopardy rules, which protect against being punished twice for the same crime. He also argued that certain evidence presented in court, including information about his past crimes and a photograph of a piece of cellophane, was not relevant and unfairly biased the jury. The court found that the first count of possession was improperly charged alongside the second due to double jeopardy, so they reversed the second charge. However, in relation to the other arguments, the court decided that the admission of the pen packet evidence and the photograph did not greatly affect the trial's outcome. The court also ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Mayfield to claim that he wasn't connected to the drugs found in the area. Additionally, Mayfield's complaints about his lawyer's performance did not lead to a different outcome, as the court found the defense wasn't significantly lacking. Finally, the court noted that Mayfield’s life sentence was appropriate and consistent with the law because of his past criminal record. Most of Mayfield's arguments were rejected, leading to the final decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1045, Joshua Paul Nosak appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, driving without a driver's license, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered that the case be sent back to fix a mistake in the sentencing. One judge disagreed with the decision. Nosak was found guilty of serious crimes after a jury trial. The jury decided he was guilty of first-degree manslaughter for driving while impaired and also found him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident after someone died. He was sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison for the manslaughter charge and received additional time and fines for the other offenses. Nosak's appeal raised several arguments. First, he believed that the court should not have allowed a specific charge against him because the underlying misdemeanor wasn't strong enough to support the manslaughter charge. However, the court found that this didn't really hurt his case because the jury found him guilty on other grounds. Second, Nosak argued that the court allowed bad evidence to be presented, which shouldn't have been allowed. The court found that he didn't object to this during the trial, so they couldn’t rule on it unless it was obviously wrong and affected his rights, which they determined it did not. Third, he claimed that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. However, the court said that because the evidence against him was very strong, he could not show that he was harmed by any mistakes made by his attorney. The fourth point was about correcting mistakes in the court's decision regarding his punishment. The court accepted that there were errors in the sentencing order and decided to send the case back to fix them. Finally, Nosak argued that the many errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. But the court found that there were no individual mistakes that were serious enough to change the trial's outcome. In conclusion, the decision meant that while Nosak's convictions were upheld, the court would correct the sentencing mistakes before finalizing the case. One judge disagreed with this conclusion, but the others agreed with the majority opinion.
In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1087, Mitchell Dewayne Baker appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the order for restitution, remanding the case to the district court for a proper determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. Baker was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each offense, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. The trial court also required him to pay restitution. Baker raised several issues in his appeal, claiming that the court had made errors during the trial process. One major issue was about the restitution ordered by the trial court, which Baker argued lacked factual support. The court acknowledged that the trial judge has discretion in deciding restitution, but determined that the record did not provide enough information to support the amount that was initially ordered. Therefore, while the conviction stood, the restitution order was removed, and the case was sent back to determine the correct restitution amount. Baker also challenged the prosecution’s use of evidence from his past crimes, saying it was unfairly used to paint him as a bad person. The court ruled that this evidence was allowed to help show that Baker’s explanation of how the victim got hurt was not credible. This was because his past behavior was relevant to his defense. Another point raised by Baker dealt with how the prosecutor questioned witnesses about their feelings during and after the incidents. The court said this questioning was relevant to establish the elements needed to prove the charges against Baker. They found no error in how this evidence was presented as it was crucial to the prosecution's case. Lastly, Baker pointed to some statements made by the prosecutor regarding the burden of proof. The court found that any mistakes were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, as the jury was correctly informed about the burden of proof at several points. Overall, while the court upheld Baker's convictions, they took issue with the restitution ordered and directed that it be reassessed to ensure a fair determination.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-471, Desiray Jaibai Allen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Allen's sentence but upheld the conviction. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge dissented. Desiray Jaibai Allen was found guilty by a jury for distributing controlled substances and was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. During the appeal, Allen raised several arguments claiming errors during the trial. He felt that improper evidence and misconduct affected his right to a fair trial. The court reviewed all aspects of the case, including trial records and arguments. Although they found some issues with the evidence presented, they decided that these did not require a complete reversal of the conviction. However, they agreed with Allen on one point: certain irrelevant and improper documents should not have been shown to the jury. Because of this, the court reduced his sentences to 15 years for each count instead of 20. The judges discussed other claims made by Allen, such as prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay evidence, but determined that these did not seriously impact the fairness of the trial. The accumulation of errors didn't lead to a requirement for further action beyond reducing the sentences. Ultimately, while the judgment of conviction remained intact, the sentences were modified to less time in prison. Thus, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but adjusted how long Allen would need to serve for the charges.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1036, Mark Anthony Troutt appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Troutt was tried and found guilty of distributing cocaine, which is a serious crime. The trial took place in the Oklahoma County District Court. During the trial, Troutt's lawyers argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge did not let the jury hear about his defense, which was based on entrapment. Entrapment means that someone was tricked into committing a crime they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The jury decided that Troutt was guilty and gave him a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Troutt did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the case. In the appeal, Troutt's lawyers pointed out three main problems with the trial. First, they said the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear about his defense of entrapment. They believed this was important because the jury needed to decide for themselves if Troutt had been tricked into committing the crime. Second, they claimed that some of the evidence presented during the trial was not relevant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Third, they argued that together, all these issues made it impossible for Troutt to get a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Troutt had been denied a fair trial. They ruled that the judge's refusal to let the jury consider his entrapment defense was a significant mistake. Because of this, the court decided to reverse Troutt's conviction and ordered a new trial where the jury could properly consider all the evidence, including his defense. The case highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the right for a defendant to have a jury hear their side of the story.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-470, Dearel Oglesby appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to 20 years in prison with a $20,000 fine. One judge dissented. Dearel Oglesby was found guilty by a jury of selling methamphetamine. He was sentenced to life in prison, which he believed was too harsh. Oglesby raised four main issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial allowed some evidence that should not have been included according to the state’s rules. The court found that even though one lab report was late, it was not a major issue since it didn't harm Oglesby’s case. Second, Oglesby argued that he did not get his right to a preliminary hearing, but the court found there was enough evidence to prove there might have been a crime. Third, he was concerned that the jury saw evidence about other drug sales he allegedly made, which he thought was unfair. The court noted that while some of this evidence was not really necessary, the prosecutor did not act on it inappropriately. Finally, Oglesby spoke about a witness being added during the trial, but the court felt that was handled correctly since it wasn’t a key part of the case. The judges found that Oglesby’s punishment was extreme considering the small amount of drugs involved, so they decided to reduce his sentence instead of just keeping the life sentence. This decision was met with some disagreement from one judge, who thought the evidence was relevant and that the original sentence should stay as is.
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-99-1422, Crider appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Crider was found guilty of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter, Crystal Dittmeyer, after she went missing in 1996. In trial, the evidence against him included blood found in their home and in his car, as well as a patterned injury on Crider's arm that was argued to be a bite mark from Crystal. The prosecution claimed Crider transported her body in a garment bag and disposed of it. Crider raised several issues in his appeal, including concerns about the reliability of expert testimony that suggested the bite mark on his arm could have come from Crystal. The court found that the expert methods used were not scientifically reliable and did not help the jury understand the evidence. This issue alone warranted a reversal of the conviction. Additionally, the court identified errors in admitting evidence related to luminol tests, which suggested the presence of blood in Crider's car but later tests were inconclusive. The admission of testimony related to a rural area where Crystal's body was not found was also seen as prejudicial and misleading. Overall, the court determined that the combination of these errors negatively impacted Crider's right to a fair trial. The ruling emphasized the need for reliable and helpful expert evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations like murder. The court called for a new trial to ensure Crider received a fair hearing.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-213, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Carrying a Controlled Dangerous Substance into Jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case involved Heather Davenport, who was accused of bringing illegal substances into a jail. During her trial, the jury found her guilty and suggested a fine and imprisonment. Davenport argued that the jury's decision was unfair because evidence about her husband’s unrelated past crimes was brought into the trial. This evidence was shown to suggest that she knew what she was doing was wrong, which she believed was not relevant to her case. The court agreed with her and noted that the evidence against her did not clearly show that she knew she was breaking the law when she brought the items to the jail. The use of information about her husband’s actions was too unfair and prejudiced her chance for a fair trial. Therefore, the court decided that the conviction should not stand, stating that the evidence presented could have caused a significant mistake in the trial's outcome. The final opinion indicated that the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against Davenport.