In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-575, Jason Duane Barnes appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. The judges noted that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation because the prosecution failed to show that the judgment related to his new crime was final. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-524, Robert Dewayne Cox appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Cox's conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana should be reversed, but the other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented. Cox was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Bryan County. The jury recommended a ten-year prison sentence for the methamphetamine charge, one day in jail for marijuana possession, and five days for public intoxication. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cox raised several claims in his appeal. He argued that having two convictions for different drug possessions from the same incident was unfair and violated his protections against double punishment. The court found this claim valid and indicated it was a plain error, meaning it was obvious even though it was not raised during the trial. Next, Cox argued the law enforcement did not properly prove that the drugs taken from him were the same ones tested by the crime lab. The court found that he did not show this as an error as there was enough evidence to link the substances to the case. Cox also stated that the jury was influenced by evidence of other bad acts that should not have been admitted. However, the court decided that this evidence was relevant to the case and did not count as an error. Cox claimed that his attorney did not do a good job of defending him, especially regarding the issues he raised in his appeal. The court concluded that since they found a plain error regarding the possession charge, the claim about ineffective assistance was not necessary to address. Finally, Cox argued that the mistakes in the trial added up to deny him a fair trial. The court determined that while there was a mistake in charging him for both drug possessions, it was an isolated incident and did not create a pattern of errors that would warrant a new trial. In summary, the court upheld Cox's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and public intoxication but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana because he should not have been punished twice for the same action. The case was sent back to the lower court for necessary actions related to this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-96, Blackwell appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Blackwell's suspended sentence but remanded the case to determine whether Blackwell is entitled to credit for time served as a Youthful Offender. One member of the court dissented. Blackwell was charged with First Degree Rape but later pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, and his sentence was delayed for five years on probation. After violating several terms of his probation, the state requested to revoke his suspended sentence. Blackwell claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentence because he argued he was a youthful offender and that his adult conviction was improper. The court explained that the appeal focused on if the revocation was valid rather than the underlying conviction's correctness. Blackwell’s claims related to his conviction need to be addressed through a different legal process, not this appeal. The court also pointed out that issues about the correctness of laws mentioned in the documents were not within their authority to correct in this appeal. Additionally, Blackwell argued that his entire sentence revocation was too harsh. However, the court mentioned that breaking even a single probation rule is enough to revoke the suspended sentence. Finally, Blackwell maintained he should get credit for the days he spent under juvenile custody, and the court agreed to look into this matter further, sending the case back for clarification on this issue. They affirmed the revocation overall but allowed for the investigation into how much credit Blackwell should receive.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.
In OCCA case No. M-2013-1049, Wilson appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wilson was charged with Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery in 2012. In February 2013, after a trial without a jury, he was found guilty. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail, with thirty days to be served, and imposed a $500 fine. Wilson challenged his conviction by raising several issues, including that he was not properly informed about his right to a jury trial and that he did not knowingly waive that right. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Wilson's right to a jury trial in the court record. They explained that for a waiver to be valid, the defendant must clearly understand what they are giving up. Since there were no documents or transcripts showing that Wilson knew about his right to a jury trial or chose to waive it, the court ruled that there was fundamental error. The majority opinion concluded by reversing Wilson's conviction and ordering a new trial because of the issues surrounding the jury trial waiver. One judge disagreed and believed that the record showed Wilson had been properly informed about his rights and that he had made a competent choice to proceed with a bench trial. However, the majority decision carried the ruling, leading to a new trial for Wilson.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-248, Harvell appealed his conviction for violating conditions of probation related to drug possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order that sentenced him to prison. The court concluded that the District Court lost its authority to revoke his suspended sentence when the state asked to dismiss the motion. Judge Smith dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1199, Gene Douglas Graham appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Douglas Graham was found guilty by a jury for lewd molestation, which is against the law. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison. However, the judge took some time off his sentence and said he would only have to serve thirteen years and pay a fine. During the trial, Gene's arguments for appeal included that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did something wrong, that he couldn't present a defense, and that he didn’t get a fair trial. Specifically, he said the judge made a mistake by not letting him talk about an eviction notice he received, which he thought was important to show that he knew about the accusations before he made a statement to the police. The court decided that the judge had made a mistake by not allowing Gene to talk about the eviction notice and that it was important for his defense. They believed that not being able to mention it could have affected the jury's decision. Even though the State had a strong case, the jury was still confused because they found him not guilty on two other counts related to the same victim. The judge also mentioned that talking about Gene's right to stay silent when the police questioned him was wrong and should not have happened. Gene’s lawyer didn’t object to this at the trial, so it complicated the case. However, since they found other problems, they reversed the conviction and decided he needed a new trial. In the end, the court agreed that Gene had not been treated fairly during his trial, leading them to reverse the decision and start over. This means they felt important evidence was wrongfully kept out and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-732, Bryan Thomas Delaney appealed his conviction for Escape from a Penal Institution and Resisting Arrest. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for post-imprisonment supervision but upheld the rest of his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Delaney was found guilty by a jury after a trial where he faced charges for escaping a jail and resisting the police. As a result of these charges, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the escape and 1 year in the county jail for the resisting arrest. The judge also ordered him to have 2 years of supervision after his prison time. Delaney argued that he was treated unfairly during the sentencing. He felt that the jury was wrongly told that his previous felony convictions could lead to a harsher sentence. However, he did not raise this issue during the trial, which made it harder for him to win the appeal. The court found that his past crimes were separate incidents and did not fall under the rules for counting prior offenses. Delaney also claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not challenge the jury instruction about the prior convictions. For his appeal to be successful on this point, he needed to show that his lawyer's mistakes really changed the outcome of his trial. The court decided that, since the jury's instruction was appropriate, his lawyer's actions did not affect his case. Finally, the court noted that while neither side pointed it out, Delaney was sentenced to longer supervision than what the law allows. They corrected this by reducing the supervision time to just 1 year. In summary, the court made some changes to Delaney's post-prison supervision but agreed with the rest of his sentencing and conviction. The decision was mostly upheld, and only one part was changed to be in line with the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1027, Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for corrections. One judge dissented. Justin Michael Jay was in trouble with the law and had a suspended sentence, which means he wouldn’t have to serve time in jail if he followed the rules. He had pleaded guilty to forgery and was given a suspended sentence of five years, but he had to spend the first 30 days in jail. However, things changed when he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation. The State, which is the side that brings charges, said that Jay did not pay the money he owed for supervision, restitution (the money owed to victims), and court costs. They also noted that Jay was charged with more crimes: Domestic Abuse and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Because of these new charges and failures to pay, the State asked the court to revoke Jay's suspended sentence. The court held a hearing to discuss Jay's situation. After listening to the evidence and arguments, the judge decided to revoke the rest of Jay's suspended sentence. This meant that Jay would have to serve the time he had left, which was almost five years. Later, the court filed a document that said Jay was revoked for 4 years and 335 days, and that he would have to be supervised after getting out of jail. Jay appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed that the amount of time the judge revoked was wrong because he should have received credit for more days served when he was part of a special program for youthful offenders. Both Jay and the State agreed on this point, saying he should have been credited for 183 days instead of just 30. Therefore, they asked to change the revocation time to 4 years and 182 days. The second point Jay argued was that the court did not have the authority to order him to be under supervision after finishing his time in jail because the law about that only applies to those who were sentenced after November 1, 2012. Since Jay's original guilty plea and sentencing were before that date, the judge should not have included that supervision requirement. In the end, the court agreed with Jay on both points. They reversed the judgment that included the incorrect time and the unnecessary supervision requirement. They ordered the lower court to make the corrections and update the documents accordingly.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-788, Travis Lenard Mikado appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance for both Marijuana and Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance while affirming the convictions for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and the felony possession of Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. The case began when two police officers saw Mikado driving erratically, crossing the centerline. They activated their lights and followed him into a parking lot. Instead of stopping, Mikado accelerated, jumped the curb, and took off down the street, leading the officers on a high-speed chase. The pursuit ended when Mikado lost control of his car, which flipped multiple times. He was thrown from the vehicle but was conscious when officers reached him. A search revealed he had Methamphetamine and Marijuana in his pockets. Mikado challenged his convictions for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, claiming they violated laws against multiple punishments. However, he hadn’t raised this challenge before the trial, so the court evaluated it for plain error, which occurs when there is an obvious mistake that impacts the fairness of the trial. The court found that Mikado's two drug possessions were part of a single act since both drugs were found in one location. The ruling referenced past decisions where individuals could not be punished more than once for the same offense if it was part of one action, as in Mikado’s case. The court decided that since the Methamphetamine and Marijuana were both in the same pocket, it counted as one act of possession. Therefore, the conviction for one of the drugs was reversed. In summary, the court affirmed most of Mikado’s convictions but recognized that he should not have been punished for both drugs separately, leading to a significant change in his sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-812, Alphie Phillip McKinney appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses, including Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of his convictions but also reversed two of them. A dissenting opinion was provided on one of the points regarding multiple punishments. The case involved McKinney being found guilty by a jury of various drug crimes. The jury's recommended punishment included many years of imprisonment and fines. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. McKinney raised several arguments in his appeal, seeking to challenge the fairness of his trial and the legality of his sentences. One major point of contention was whether the prosecutor unfairly excluded certain jurors based on race, claiming violation of equal protection rights. The court decided that McKinney did not prove purposeful discrimination and upheld the decisions made by the trial court regarding jury selection. Another argument was about the prosecutor's questioning related to McKinney’s past drug possession case during the trial. The court found that since McKinney had already spoken about his past, the prosecutor's questions did not harm his case. McKinney’s attempt to argue that his multiple convictions for possession of different drugs should be treated as one was considered. The court found that having several drugs at once can still lead to multiple charges under the law. However, they also concluded that McKinney’s convictions for possession in some counts were in error because he could only be punished once for a single action of possession involving multiple drugs. The court further ruled on McKinney's claims that his punishments for different crimes related to the same act went against legal protections against being punished multiple times for the same behavior. The court agreed with some points raised by McKinney about this and decided to reverse two of his possession convictions. However, they maintained that his trafficking conviction and another possession charge did not violate those protections because they fell under different legal conditions. Lastly, McKinney argued that his attorney did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court reviewed this claim but decided that he did not show that he had suffered any harm from his attorney’s actions and thus did not grant relief based on this argument. In summary, the judgments in Counts I, II, IV, and VI were upheld, while the judgments in Counts III and V were reversed and sent back with instructions to dismiss those charges. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed on how some arguments about multiple punishments were handled. Another judge also showed support for the prosecution's handling of certain charges but felt differently regarding the evaluation of potential double punishments.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-939, Quinton Blake Richardson appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that revoked a part of his suspended sentence based on a conflict of interest involving his attorney. One judge dissented. Mr. Richardson had originally entered a guilty plea to stealing items worth over $500 from a Wal-Mart and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment, which was suspended under probation. However, he later faced a motion to revoke his suspended sentence. This motion claimed he violated his probation with new charges in Kansas for threatening and hitting a person, as well as failing drug tests. During the revocation hearing, Mr. Richardson's attorney had previously represented the victim in his case, which created a conflict of interest. The victim testified against Mr. Richardson, and the court judged that this situation affected how well Mr. Richardson was defended. The court emphasized that if a lawyer has a conflict of interest that harms their representation, the defendant may have their case overturned. Therefore, since the court believed Mr. Richardson did not get the fair help he needed because of the attorney's former relationship with the victim, they decided to reverse the revocation of his sentence and sent the case back for further proceedings. Additionally, the court found that other issues raised by Mr. Richardson about paperwork errors were not necessary to address further because of the main reversal decision. Overall, this case highlighted the importance of fair legal representation and how conflicts of interest can lead to wrong decisions in court.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-994, Horace Joe Bigmedicine appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Bigmedicine was found guilty in a trial held in Blaine County and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. He raised two main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that misconduct by the prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial. The court stated that it would only grant relief for prosecutorial misconduct if it was very serious and made the trial unfair. The court found the prosecutor's comments were appropriate and did not make the trial unfair, so they did not grant relief on that issue. Second, Bigmedicine claimed that the court did not properly follow the rules when it ordered him to pay $2,000 in restitution. The court pointed out that Bigmedicine did not object to the restitution at the time, so he could not challenge it later unless there was a serious mistake. The law allows a trial court to require a defendant to pay restitution for the victim's financial losses, but these losses must be proven with reasonable certainty. In Bigmedicine’s case, the evidence about the victim’s financial loss was lacking because the victim did not testify about it, and the necessary documents were not presented in court. Therefore, the court ruled that the restitution order was arbitrary and that it had to be canceled. Ultimately, the court affirmed Bigmedicine's conviction but required that the issue of restitution be looked at again in the lower court to make sure it was handled correctly.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-668, Aaron M. Holmes appealed his conviction for Possessing A Firearm After Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Aaron M. Holmes was found guilty by a jury for having a gun after previously being convicted of felonies. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and a fine of $10,000. Holmes appealed the conviction, stating several reasons he believed the trial was unfair. He argued that the prosecutor made mistakes by asking the jury to think about evidence from the first part of the trial in later parts. He also claimed his lawyer didn't help him well and that the jury was unfairly influenced by information about his past sentences, leading to a harsh punishment. The jury did clear Holmes of two other charges related to robbery and assault. During the court's review, it was found that the prosecutor was correct in including evidence from the earlier stages of the trial when discussing Holmes's situation. Because Holmes did not raise this concern during the trial, he could not challenge it fully on appeal. Concerning Holmes's claim about the prosecutor mentioning his past sentences, the court found that this was indeed a mistake since it could affect how the jury decided on his punishment. Because the jury opted for the maximum sentence possible, the court modified Holmes's punishment from life in prison to 30 years. As for the argument about the lawyer, the court decided it didn't make sense to say the lawyer was ineffective since the earlier issue was found not to be an actual error. Thus, this part of Holmes's appeal was denied. The court ultimately decided to keep the conviction but changed the length of the prison sentence to be less than what was initially given.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1029, Dustin Kyle Martin appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and Accessory to Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Martin's conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder but reversed the conviction for Accessory to Second Degree Murder, with instructions to dismiss that count. One judge dissented regarding the classification of being a principal and an accessory to the same crime. Martin was found guilty of both murder and being an accessory, which raised questions about whether one person can be convicted of both for the same crime. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, a person involved in a crime can be considered either a principal or an accessory, but cannot be both for the same offense. The trial court made an error by allowing the accessory charge to remain when Martin was already convicted of murder. During the trial, Martin's lawyers pointed out that he was convicted as a principal for the murder, so being convicted as an accessory to the same murder didn't make sense legally. The prosecution agreed that this was an error. Thus, the court decided to reverse the accessory conviction but kept the murder conviction intact. Martin also argued that there were many other problems during the trial, including mistakes in the jury instructions and the admission of prejudicial evidence, but the court found that these issues either did not affect the verdict or were harmless errors. The judges considered everything and concluded that the conviction for felony murder was supported by enough evidence, while the evidence wasn’t sufficient to support him being an accessory. In summary, the final decision of the court affirmed the murder conviction, while the accessory conviction was dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-409, Adkins appealed his conviction for probation violations. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of some of his suspended sentences but ruled that the judge could not deny him good time credits while serving his time. One judge dissented.