Judgment and Sentence Archives - Page 16 of 28

F-2009-399

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 15, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.

F-2010-288

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 7, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.

RE-2009-655

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.

F-2009-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 16, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.

F-2009-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1067, Embry Jay Loftis appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Loftis's Judgment but modify his Sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Loftis was found guilty by a jury and received a punishment of forty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. He appealed for several reasons. First, he believed that he was unfairly denied the chance to present witnesses who could help his case. Second, he felt that representing himself during the trial was not properly allowed since the court didn’t check if he was capable of doing so. He also argued that the jury should not have been allowed to consider his past convictions for enhancing his punishment because they were part of the same event. Loftis claimed that missing written jury instructions meant he couldn't fully contest the second part of the trial. He also stated that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Additionally, he questioned if there was enough evidence to prove he had possession of the drugs. Lastly, he thought that all the errors together should lead to a new trial or change in sentencing. After reviewing everything, the court found that while Loftis’ trial was not perfect, the errors did not warrant a reversal of the conviction. However, because of some issues with the sentencing in light of his past convictions and prosecutor comments, they reduced his sentence to thirty years instead of forty. The court maintained that Loftis had enough information to prepare for his appeal, even without the written jury instructions.

F-2010-223

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 16, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-223, Travis Ray Tiger appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the restitution order, ordering the trial court to determine a proper amount of restitution. One judge dissented. Travis Ray Tiger was found guilty in a non-jury trial for attacking two victims with a utility knife, inflicting serious injuries. The trial judge sentenced him to 32 years in prison for each count, with additional fees and a large restitution amount. Tiger argued that he acted in self-defense, but the court found that he was the aggressor and had provoked the fight. The evidence presented showed he used deadly force against unarmed victims, which did not justify his actions. Regarding his sentences, Tiger claimed they were too harsh. However, the court ruled that the sentences were within the law's limits and appropriate for the crimes committed. Tiger also challenged the restitution amount, asserting that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. While some evidence of the victims' medical expenses was presented, the court noted that there were gaps in the financial details regarding compensation received from other sources. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order for a new determination of the amount owed to the victims. In summary, while Travis Ray Tiger's assault conviction was upheld, the court found issues with the restitution process that needed to be resolved, leading to the order for a new hearing on the restitution amount.

F-2009-959

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-959, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the lower court's decisions while modifying one of the fines imposed. One member dissented. Napoleon Eugene Manous was tried by jury in the District Court of Okmulgee County, where he was found guilty of two counts: one for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and another for driving with his license suspended. The jury sentenced him to seven years in prison with treatment and a fine for the first count, and to six months in jail with a fine for the second count. Mr. Manous raised several points in his appeal. He claimed his rights were violated in a few ways. For instance, he argued that statements he made while in custody should not have been used against him because he did not receive a warning that he had the right to remain silent (known as a Miranda warning). The court found that the statements were not obtained from police questioning, so they could be used in his trial. He also argued that hearsay evidence was wrongly allowed in his trial. However, the court found that this evidence was not used to prove something true but was only to explain why the police officer acted as he did. Therefore, it did not violate his right to a fair trial. Manous believed he did not get a fair punishment because of incorrect jury instructions about fines for his second count. The court agreed that the jury got bad information about how much they could fine him and decided to change the fine amount to $300 instead of $500. He argued that the trial court misapplied his sentence and didn’t accurately reflect the jury’s decision. The court acknowledged this mistake and agreed to correct the written judgment to match the jury’s decisions. Moreover, Manous claimed that mentioning his past legal troubles during sentencing was unfair. The court, however, found that his lawyer did not object to this at the trial, which weakened his argument on appeal. He also stated his lawyer did not properly fight against the errors during the trial that affected his sentencing. Again, the court found that many issues had already been addressed and it was not enough to have his conviction overturned. Lastly, he combined all his complaints, arguing that they collectively warranted a new trial, but the court ruled that there was no significant accumulation of errors. In summary, the court affirmed much of the initial decisions made by the lower court but did make changes to the fine in one count. One judge disagreed with part of the decision but largely supported the overall outcome.

RE-2009-239

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.

M 2009-1064

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 9, 2010
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.

F-2009-177

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 8, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.

C-2009-542

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 24, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-542, Gatewood appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Using a Telephone to Cause the Commission of the Crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Gatewood's petition for writ of certiorari, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Roscoe Curtis Gatewood, Jr. was in trouble because he was accused of selling drugs and using a phone to help with that crime. He decided to plead guilty to these charges with the advice of his lawyer. The judge gave him a long sentence. Gatewood later wanted to change his plea because he felt his lawyer had a conflict of interest. The conflict happened because both Gatewood and his girlfriend, who was also accused, were represented by lawyers from the same law firm. Gatewood's girlfriend decided to testify against him in exchange for a lighter sentence. This meant Gatewood's lawyer could not defend him as well because he was also looking out for the girlfriend's best interests. The court agreed that this was a serious problem, which unfairly affected Gatewood's case. As a result, the court allowed Gatewood to take back his guilty pleas, meaning he could go to trial instead. The decision to reverse the previous ruling was made so Gatewood could have a fair chance to defend himself. In summary, the court found that Gatewood's rights were harmed because of his lawyer's conflicting duties, and they reversed his conviction so he could have another chance in court.

C 2009-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 26, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2009-665, Sutton appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Sutton's request to withdraw his guilty plea. Sutton dissented. Petitioner Donald Edward Sutton, Jr. had pleaded guilty to a serious crime. The judge sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he would only serve eight of those years before possibly getting out. After the plea, Sutton thought things were unfair and said he didn't understand everything when he agreed to plead guilty. Sutton said he didn’t know about important details like having to spend 85% of his time in prison before being eligible for parole or that he would have to register as a sex offender. He felt that he didn't get the help he needed from his lawyer when he entered his plea and when he tried to take it back later. Sutton thought his 20-year sentence was too harsh, especially because he believed there were reasons to be lenient. After reviewing all the information provided, the court agreed that Sutton wasn't given all the facts he needed to make an informed choice about his plea. This omission made his agreement invalid since he didn’t enter it knowingly and voluntarily. The court decided that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and gave orders for the case to go back for further consideration. The other claims Sutton made about his lawyer and the fairness of his sentence became unnecessary to discuss because of this main issue. In summary, Sutton was given a chance to change his plea because the court found that he wasn’t properly informed about important consequences of his decision.

F-2009-129

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 27, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-129, David Deontae McCoy appealed his conviction for burglary, robbery, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of the convictions, reversed one, and ordered a new trial for that count. One judge dissented. David Deontae McCoy was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes, including first-degree burglary, robbery by two or more persons, and assaults with dangerous weapons. He received long prison sentences for each count, but they would all be served at the same time. McCoy argued that his convictions were based on unreliable eyewitness accounts, especially regarding a witness named Megan Kinter. He claimed that because the eyewitnesses were mistaken, his convictions should be thrown out. He also pointed out that the trial court made a mistake by not giving a specific warning to the jury about believing eyewitness identification. Another important point McCoy raised was about getting punished multiple times for the same incidents. He said that the law protects him from being punished more than once for the same crime and argued that some of his charges violated that protection. McCoy thought he did not get a fair trial because the jury was not given all the necessary details about what his assault charges entailed. He also claimed that certain photographs shown during the trial should not have been allowed because they could be unfairly upsetting and hurt his case. Additionally, McCoy accused the prosecutors of bad behavior during the trial, which he said prevented him from having a fair trial. He claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which is also a right he has. After reviewing McCoy's arguments, the court found that the evidence against him was strong enough that he was likely involved in the crimes. They said that even if there were issues about the eyewitness identification, it did not weaken the case enough to change the outcome of the trial. The court mentioned that the trial judge did not correctly instruct the jury about the important parts needed to prove one of the assaults. Because of this, they decided that it was necessary to reverse that conviction and order a new trial. For another assault charge, although there was also a mistake in instructions, the court believed that it wouldn't have changed the result of the trial. So, they did not reverse that conviction. Finally, the court corrected a mistake about how McCoy's convictions were recorded, making sure the written records reflected what he was actually charged with. So, while two of McCoy’s convictions were kept, one was sent back for a new trial due to issues with how the jury was instructed.

F-2009-335

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 16, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-335, Jermaine Darnell Jeffery appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Jermaine was found guilty of several serious crimes related to a shooting incident. During the trial, the jury decided on punishments for his actions, including life in prison for murder. Jermaine argued that there wasn't enough proof to connect his shooting with the death of the victim and that he was punished unfairly for the same crime more than once, which is known as double jeopardy. He also claimed that his rights were violated when the court allowed evidence about his silence after being arrested and that hearsay statements from other witnesses should not have been allowed. Jermaine felt he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor talked about things not proven in court and that his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not pointing out mistakes during the trial. The court reviewed all the evidence and arguments. They agreed that there was enough proof for the murder charge but recognized a mistake in charging Jermaine with both murder and the shooting he did, leading to the reversal of that specific charge. The court found that some errors did happen, but most were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they upheld the punishments for the other crimes while agreeing to dismiss the shooting conviction.

F-2009-398

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-398, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Phencyclidine) with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana) with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count and reverse the conviction for the second count, with instructions to dismiss it. One justice dissented.

RE-2010-304

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-304, Jason Dean Vansickle appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order related to his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jason was found guilty of two counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. The judge initially decided to wait five years before making a final decision about Jason's punishment, allowing him to follow some rules during that time. But later, the state said Jason broke those rules by using drugs and not paying fees. After a hearing, the judge decided that Jason did break the rules and ordered that he serve a year in jail. The judge added that if Jason could finish rehab during that year, he could avoid additional punishment. Jason disagreed with the judge's decision, especially the part about needing to serve a calendar year in jail, believing it meant he had to stay there every day without earning any time off. The court agreed with Jason that the judge didn't have the authority to set his punishment this way. It clarified that any time taken off his punishment should be based on the original sentence without this added calendar requirement. The court decided that the year part of the sentence, as described by the judge, should be changed. They kept the other parts of the judge's decision the same but removed the requirement for serving a calendar year in jail. Overall, the case highlighted that judges must follow specific rules when deciding on punishments and that adding extra conditions could go beyond what they are allowed to do.

F-2009-1

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.

F-2008-1066

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 11, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1066, Rodney Dennis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirteen years to eight years imprisonment. One judge dissented.

C-2008-1155

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.

F-2009-47

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 25, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

F-2008-1041

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.

RE 2009-0080

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.

F-2007-1133

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 10, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-1133, Jona Ann Montgomery appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Second Degree Murder and affirmed the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. One judge dissented. Jona Ann Montgomery was tried in Pittsburg County for her involvement in a tragic incident where she hit two children with her car while speeding near a crowded football game. The younger child, a ten-year-old girl, unfortunately died, while her brother survived. After the accident, Montgomery left the scene but left behind her belongings in the car. The main issue in Montgomery's appeal was the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the possibility of a lesser charge known as Misdemeanor Manslaughter. Initially, the law at the time of Montgomery's trial did not permit this instruction, and her attorney argued against it. However, shortly after the trial, a higher court changed its stance on this law, ruling that driving while impaired could indeed be used for a Misdemeanor Manslaughter charge. Montgomery argued that she should receive a new trial based on this new rule. The court reviewed the situation and agreed that the trial court had made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider this lesser charge. They believed that a fair jury could have potentially found Montgomery guilty of Misdemeanor Manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, given the circumstances of the case. Montgomery also raised concerns about other evidence that was presented during her trial. This included items found in her vehicle that were linked to drug use and remarks made during the trial suggesting she showed no remorse for her actions. The court found that much of this evidence was not necessary and could unfairly bias the jury against Montgomery. The decision ultimately led to the reversal of her conviction for Second Degree Murder because of the instructional error on Misdemeanor Manslaughter, while they upheld the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. The judges aimed to ensure that future trials would avoid the errors found in Montgomery's case.

F-2008-786

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2008-786, James Dion Smith appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that had accelerated his Judgment and Sentence and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Smith had originally entered a plea of no contest for possession of a controlled substance, and his sentence was delayed for two years. This means he didn't have to go to jail right away as long as he followed the rules during that time. However, later on, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to speed up Smith's sentence because they believed he had broken the rules. When the court had a hearing to look into the State’s request, they decided to impose Smith's sentence. But Smith argued that the court shouldn’t have done this based on something that happened after his period of supervision had ended. After examining the details, the court agreed with Smith. They found that the reason for speeding up his sentence was tied to a new case that occurred after the time Smith was supposed to be on probation. They decided the lower court was wrong to speed up his sentence and told them to cancel the action against Smith. In the dissenting opinion, the judge felt the court overlooked how the situation happened. This judge pointed out that Smith admitted to not following the rules during his probation. When Smith did not show up for a later hearing, the judge believed the court could still take action against him based on his failure to appear, even if new charges could not be considered. In the end, the main ruling was to reverse the earlier decision and to dismiss the case against Smith.

C-2009-89

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.