Judgment and Sentence Archives - Page 26 of 28

F-2001-985

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-985, Karyn Jo Webb appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Karyn Jo Webb was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. She believed her lawyer did not help her properly during the trial. Karyn said her lawyer did not look into important medical evidence that might show she was innocent. She also thought her lawyer did not question the state’s medical experts well and missed gathering good character references that could help her side of the case. The court looked carefully at all the information from the trial and decided that Karyn’s lawyer did not perform well. They concluded that he was not able to act as a good defense lawyer, which is why Karyn should get a new trial. The main issue was that without a medical expert, her lawyer could not effectively fight against the accusations that she harmed the child. Therefore, the court said Karyn deserved another chance to prove her case.

F-2001-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

RE-2001-887

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

F-2001-281

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-281, Jimmy Lee Mullins appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Death, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Non-Fatal Personal Injuries. In a published decision, the court decided that Mullins's conviction for Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Non-Fatal Personal Injuries should be reversed and dismissed. The court confirmed his convictions for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Death. One judge dissented.

F-2001-230

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.

M-2001-174

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.

F-2001-210

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.

M 2001-0393

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.

F-2001-211

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.

C-2001-537

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-537, a person appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts while keeping the other counts affirmed. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The plea agreement allowed for a one-year suspended sentence if he completed a drug court program. However, he later violated the terms of this agreement by using drugs again and not attending the required sessions, leading to a longer sentence. After the court sentenced him to a total of 21 years in prison for the remaining counts, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued he did not fully understand what he was agreeing to, specifically the length of his sentences and various conditions. In reviewing the case, the court found a significant issue with the individual's dual convictions for possessing two kinds of drugs at the same time, which they ruled could violate double jeopardy rules. They agreed with part of his appeal and reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana, while affirming the other two convictions.

F 2000-1652

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1652, Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance but reversed and dismissed the count for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. One judge dissented. The case began when authorities found evidence suggesting Sprowls was making illegal drugs, which led to his trial. The jury found him guilty and recommended a long prison sentence along with fines. Sprowls argued that this evidence should not have been used because it was collected without a proper search warrant. He also claimed that he was unfairly punished multiple times for the same act, which violated his rights. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that Sprowls was punished twice for the same crime, so they reversed the second conviction and removed the fine associated with it. However, they determined that the evidence for the first charge was enough to support the jury's decision and that his sentence was fair. Ultimately, the court affirmed part of the decision but corrected what they saw as an error in punishing him.

RE 2001-0540

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.

F-2001-1028

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 2, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1028, Terry Wayne Jennings appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Terry Wayne Jennings was found guilty by a jury in Kiowa County. The jury recommended he be sentenced to eighteen years in prison, and the judge also added a fine of $25,000, even though the jury did not suggest it. Jennings appealed his sentence, raising several issues. One of the main points in his appeal was about the search warrant used to collect evidence against him. Jennings argued that the warrant was based on a weak affidavit, which is a written statement used to get permission from a judge to search a place. He claimed that his rights were violated because this affidavit did not provide enough information to believe there was a good reason to search his property. The court reviewed the details of how the warrant was issued and the information given to the judge who approved it. They said that in deciding whether there was probable cause for a search, the judge needed to believe there was a fair chance that the information was true. Important details like whether the informing person was credible or if their information offered any independent confirmation were necessary. In this case, the specific informant's information was not well-supported. The court noted that there was no past history of the informant giving reliable information to the police. They compared this case to a previous case where a similar situation led to the suppression of evidence. After looking carefully at the affidavit, the court felt there was not enough solid information for the judge who issued the warrant to conclude that there were true grounds for the search. As a result, the court decided that Jennings’ conviction was based on evidence that should not have been allowed, reversing his conviction and ordering that the case be dismissed. In conclusion, the decision from the court meant that Jennings was no longer considered guilty based on how the evidence was collected. The court stressed that following proper legal procedures is important to protect everyone's rights, especially in criminal cases.

F-2002-324

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.

RE 2001-0663

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.

J 2001-878

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2002
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.

F-2001-46

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-46, Harold Edward McHam appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the conviction for Indecent Proposal. One judge dissented regarding the Kidnapping conviction. Harold McHam was found guilty in a trial that took place from October 10 to October 12, 2000, in Choctaw County District Court. He was convicted of two charges: Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. The jury sentenced him to one year in prison for each count, and the sentences were set to be served one after the other. The judge also ordered McHam to pay $1,000 in incarceration fees for his time spent in jail. McHam raised several concerns during his appeal. First, he argued that the incarceration fees imposed on him violated his rights because they were not calculated according to the law. The court found that the trial judge did not show how the $1,000 fee was determined, and whether it would create hardship for McHam and his family. Thus, the fees were removed and the case was sent back to the district court to handle the fees properly. Second, McHam claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he kidnapped anyone. The court agreed, stating that a key part of the kidnapping charge was not supported by enough proof. The court saw that the evidence didn’t clearly show that McHam meant to secretly keep anyone confined against their will. Therefore, his Kidnapping conviction was overturned. Finally, McHam also argued that the punishment he received was too harsh. However, this point did not need to be discussed because the Kidnapping conviction was already reversed. On the other hand, the court upheld the conviction for Indecent Proposal, stating that there was enough evidence for that charge. In summary, the court decided to dismiss the Kidnapping charge, keep the Indecent Proposal charge, and take another look at the fees McHam was ordered to pay.

RE 2001-0351

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 25, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-1209

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.

F-2001-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.

F 2000-1543

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.

F 2000-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.

RE-2000-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 27, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.

RE 2000-1512

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

F-2000-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.