In OCCA case No. RE-2019-850, Jade Christian Nichols appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking four years of Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing before a different judge. One judge dissented.
It seems you have provided a court document regarding a correction order related to a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. The document includes information about the case and its parties, as well as directions for accessing a PDF version of the opinion. If you have any specific questions or need assistance regarding this court document or related matters, feel free to ask!
In OCCA case No. RE-2017-264, Damion Deshawn Polk appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery) After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the balance of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when Polk was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to go to prison right away. He had to follow certain rules, including paying fees, doing community service, and staying out of trouble. However, he did not follow these rules, and the State asked for his sentence to be revoked. At a hearing, Polk admitted to using drugs, which was one of the reasons his probation was being revoked. The judge gave him a punishment by sending him to jail for ninety days. After he served this time, he was supposed to report to a program but missed his next court date. Later, when the judge reviewed the case again, he revoked Polk's suspended sentence entirely. However, during the appeal, the court found that Polk had already been punished for his drug use and that the judge should not have fully revoked his sentence for that same violation. The appellate court decided that there should have been new violations presented for the full revocation. As a result, the court reversed the judge's decision to revoke Polk's suspended sentence completely. They noted that a suspended sentence can't be revoked for a reason that has already been punished. The appellate court ruled that since Polk had already faced penalties for his prior drug use, the judge should have considered that before taking away the rest of his suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-909, Val Wilkerson appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Val Wilkerson was found guilty by a jury in Haskell County for a serious crime. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years in prison. After the trial, Wilkerson felt that things went wrong and he raised several points to appeal. First, he argued that the State used too much unfair evidence from other incidents that made him look bad. He thought this made the trial unfair. Second, he believed it was wrong for the prosecutors and police to mention that he had stayed quiet when asked questions. Third, he said the court did not give the jury the correct instructions. Lastly, he claimed that all these mistakes together made his trial unfair. The Court looked over everything carefully and agreed that the way other crimes were presented was a problem. They found that even though some earlier actions of Wilkerson were similar to what he was accused of, the older incidents happened a long time ago and should not have been brought up so much in his trial. The Court determined that while some bad evidence was allowed, the main evidence against Wilkerson was enough for the jury to find him guilty. However, the additional bad evidence likely influenced the length of the sentence because the prosecutor asked the jury to consider these past actions when deciding on punishment. Since the Court believed that the jury was distracted by this unfair evidence while deciding on the punishment, they changed the sentence to fifteen years instead of thirty. They also concluded that other issues raised by Wilkerson either did not affect the trial’s fairness or were fixed by the trial court’s instructions. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed that the punishment was too harsh and lowered it. One judge disagreed and believed the case should be tried again.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-268, Martin Roy Romero appealed his conviction for drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of his convictions but upheld the rest. A judge dissented in part. Romero was found guilty by a jury in Stephens County for three charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Trafficking in Methamphetamine, and Using a Minor to Distribute Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to several years in prison and significant fines. Romero raised several issues on appeal. He claimed that the prosecutor's actions during the trial were unfair and affected his chances for a fair trial. He also argued that he should not have been punished for both conspiracy and trafficking crimes because they stemmed from the same act, saying it was a violation of his rights against double punishment. He thought that the evidence used to convict him of conspiracy was not enough. Lastly, he felt that it was wrong to convict him of using a minor for trafficking and trafficking itself, again arguing it was related to the same act. After reviewing the case, the court found that one of the convictions for trafficking was indeed improperly counted and reversed that decision. They decided that his actions did not violate the rule against double punishment for the other charges. The court concluded that there was enough evidence to support the conspiracy charge. However, the conviction for trafficking was reversed because the same act could not support two different charges. In summary, the court agreed with Romero about the double punishment issue regarding trafficking, but upheld the other convictions. The final decision reversed and remanded the trafficking charge while affirming the rest.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-580, Garcia appealed his conviction for obtaining money by means of a false check. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of Garcia’s deferred sentencing and sent the matter back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here is what happened in simpler terms: Garcia was found guilty of a crime and got a chance to avoid a harsh punishment by being put on probation for five years. But a short time after starting probation, the state said he broke the rules, so they wanted to give him a tougher punishment. The judge first made sure Garcia was mentally okay to understand what was happening and to help in his defense. After deciding he was competent, the judge allowed the hearing to continue without first ensuring that Garcia had a lawyer present. During a later hearing, it was found that Garcia indeed had violated probation, and he was sentenced to a year in jail and a fine. Garcia argued that the judge should not have moved ahead with the case without following the proper steps, especially regarding his right to have a lawyer. The court agreed with Garcia’s point. They decided that the earlier decision to make his sentence tougher was not done correctly. So, the court reversed the punishment and sent the case back to make sure Garcia had a lawyer and that all the necessary rules were followed in the next steps.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1163, Byrin Carr appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Carr's convictions. One judge dissented. Byrin Carr was found guilty by a jury of two counts related to selling cocaine near a school and public housing. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, plus fines. However, Carr argued that the court made mistakes during his trial. One of the key points was that Carr wanted the jury to hear about entrapment. This means he believed he was tricked into committing the crime by police. The court agreed that this important point should have been shared with the jury. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carr's convictions. Now, instead of being convicted of delivery, Carr was found guilty of possessing cocaine near a school and just possession of cocaine in general. His new sentence was reduced to five years for each conviction, to be served one after the other. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge dissented. This dissenting judge believed that instead of changing the convictions, the case should be sent back for a new trial to address the mistakes made. Overall, the case highlighted the importance of fair instructions to the jury and how mistakes in court can lead to changes in sentences or corrections in charges.