Judgment Reversed Archives

C-2016-877

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

F-2015-187

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

F-2004-1112

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 16, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

F-2003-633

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.

F-2000-1304

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1304, Michael Renee Powell appealed her conviction for manufacturing controlled dangerous substances (CDS), unlawful possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss the conviction for manufacturing CDS due to insufficient evidence. It noted that the conviction for maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs would be modified to a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The court affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the manufacturing charge, believing there was enough evidence to uphold that conviction.