Judgment

F-2009-407

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-407, Thomas Ray Young appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Young was found guilty of sexually abusing his daughter and was sentenced to four life terms in prison, which the jury recommended to be served one after the other. Young raised several issues in his appeal, including claims that the trial court made errors by allowing certain evidence, giving confusing jury instructions, allowing expert testimony that supported the complainant's credibility, and examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, Young argued that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. The court carefully assessed the evidence admitted during the trial. Young contested evidence about past physical abuse towards his daughter and son, as well as a 1979 sexual assault against a teenager. The court found that references to the past abuse of the daughter were relevant to understand why she may have been hesitant to report the sexual abuse. The mention of his son was seen as proper because it challenged the credibility of a defense witness. However, evidence regarding the 1979 sexual assault had minimal relevance and could have been too prejudicial. Regarding jury instructions, the court found the trial judge's instructions were tailored to the evidence, even though they were not standard. The court decided that these instructions did not create errors. The expert witnesses presented by the state were seen as helpful rather than harmful to the case; they did not improperly support the credibility of the complainant. The court ruled that most of the prosecutor's comments during trial did not warrant a problem, except for some details about Young's criminal past, which could have unfairly influenced the jury. The court believed that the modification of Young's sentences to run concurrently addressed any potential unfairness. In summary, the court affirmed Young's conviction but changed his sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after another.

Continue ReadingF-2009-407

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

F-2009-466

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-466, Derrick Andre Fields appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Injure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court imposed a sentence that was not authorized by law and remanded the case back to the trial court for resentencing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2009-466

F-2009-236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-236, James Lee Copeland, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but ordered the district court to correct the official record to properly reflect the conviction and remove an incorrect statement about parole eligibility. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2009-236

RE-2008-753

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-753, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving while privilege revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences for most counts, but vacated the revocation of the suspended sentence for one count because the Appellant had already served that sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here's what happened: The Appellant had entered guilty pleas for multiple charges, including possession of drugs and driving offenses, and was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not serve time in jail as long as he followed the rules of his probation. Later, the state accused the Appellant of breaking the rules of his probation. After a hearing, the judge ruled to revoke all of his suspended sentences. The Appellant appealed, arguing that one part of the judge's decision was incorrect because he had already finished serving that part of his sentence. The court agreed and decided to remove the part of the revocation related to that count. However, the court did not find that the judge acted unfairly or excessively in revoking the other suspended sentences, as the Appellant did not comply with the probation requirements despite being given a second chance. In summary, while the Appellant lost the chance to keep those suspended sentences, one mistake in the original order was corrected.

Continue ReadingRE-2008-753

J-2009-0091

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2009-0091, C.C.S. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had granted the State's motion to impose an adult sentence on C.C.S. and remanded the case for further proceedings with instructions to sentence C.C.S. as a Youthful Offender if he is convicted of the charged crimes. One judge dissented. C.C.S., who was born on December 28, 1990, faced multiple charges as a Youthful Offender. These included robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and obstructing an officer. The State requested that C.C.S. be sentenced as an adult. After a hearing, a judge decided C.C.S. should be tried as an adult for the robbery charge. C.C.S. then appealed, and the case came before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. During a hearing on April 30, 2009, the court listened to arguments and took time to think about the case. The court determined that the trial court had made a mistake by deciding to treat C.C.S. as an adult. The ruling meant that if C.C.S. was found guilty, he should be treated and sentenced as a Youthful Offender according to the law. This result was based on the idea that the law aims to help young people rehabilitate rather than punish them like adults. The judges in the dissent expressed their disagreement with the majority opinion. They believed that the trial judge had made a reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. They felt that the judge had thought carefully about what would be best for C.C.S., considering his age and the nature of the charges against him. The dissenting opinion also pointed out concerns about how the ruling would work, especially because C.C.S. was almost 18 at the time of the decision and nearly 18.5 years old by the time the case was decided. They referred to specific laws about how young offenders should be treated and raised questions about whether C.C.S. would still be eligible for a Youthful Offender program given his age during the legal proceedings. Overall, the court’s decision aimed to ensure that young people like C.C.S. would have the opportunity for rehabilitation instead of simply being punished as adults for their actions. The focus was on providing a chance for a better future rather than imposing adult penalties.

Continue ReadingJ-2009-0091

F-2007-909

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-909, Val Wilkerson appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Val Wilkerson was found guilty by a jury in Haskell County for a serious crime. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years in prison. After the trial, Wilkerson felt that things went wrong and he raised several points to appeal. First, he argued that the State used too much unfair evidence from other incidents that made him look bad. He thought this made the trial unfair. Second, he believed it was wrong for the prosecutors and police to mention that he had stayed quiet when asked questions. Third, he said the court did not give the jury the correct instructions. Lastly, he claimed that all these mistakes together made his trial unfair. The Court looked over everything carefully and agreed that the way other crimes were presented was a problem. They found that even though some earlier actions of Wilkerson were similar to what he was accused of, the older incidents happened a long time ago and should not have been brought up so much in his trial. The Court determined that while some bad evidence was allowed, the main evidence against Wilkerson was enough for the jury to find him guilty. However, the additional bad evidence likely influenced the length of the sentence because the prosecutor asked the jury to consider these past actions when deciding on punishment. Since the Court believed that the jury was distracted by this unfair evidence while deciding on the punishment, they changed the sentence to fifteen years instead of thirty. They also concluded that other issues raised by Wilkerson either did not affect the trial’s fairness or were fixed by the trial court’s instructions. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed that the punishment was too harsh and lowered it. One judge disagreed and believed the case should be tried again.

Continue ReadingF-2007-909

C-2008-593

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.

Continue ReadingC-2008-593

C 2008-448

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-448, Franklin Savoy Combs appealed his conviction for grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Combs to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Combs was charged with grand larceny after two checks were stolen while he was visiting someone's home. He entered an Alford plea, meaning he accepted a punishment without admitting guilt, thinking it would be in his best interest. Combs was sentenced to five years in prison, with four years of that time suspended. Later, Combs sent a letter to the court saying he wanted to change his plea because he believed he was not guilty since he did not actually steal anything. The court agreed to a hearing where Combs explained that he didn't commit the crime. However, the court decided not to let him withdraw his plea. Combs then appealed this decision and raised two main points: he didn't understand what he was doing when he entered his plea, and there wasn't enough evidence to support his plea. The appeals court reviewed the case and decided that the original court made mistakes. They noted that there was not enough factual basis for Combs to plead guilty. In fact, they found that he might actually be innocent of the charges based on the facts presented. The appeals court said that Combs should be allowed to take back his plea and sent the case back to the lower court for further actions based on their ruling. Overall, the court agreed that Combs did not enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and they concluded their findings by granting him the chance to withdraw his Alford plea.

Continue ReadingC 2008-448

S 2007-1212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2007-1212, Jason L. Bandy appealed his conviction for Negligent Homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal regarding the suppression of a blood test. The court found that the State did not show that reviewing the case would be in the best interests of justice, and they concluded that the suppressed evidence was not a significant part of their case against Bandy. Consequently, the case was sent back to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS 2007-1212

F 2006-443

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2006-443, Bill Neal Robison, II, appealed his conviction for causing an accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. A judge dissented. Robison was found guilty in a trial that took place in Oklahoma County. The jury decided he should serve five years in prison and pay a fine of $5000. He appealed on two main points. First, he argued that the results of a blood test from the hospital should not have been used against him in court. Second, he claimed that his lawyer did not represent him properly. The court looked closely at Robison's first point and agreed that the blood test should not have been included as evidence. The test was done for medical reasons, and the court noted that it was not one of the specific tests approved for measuring alcohol levels under the law. The treating doctor testified that Robison's blood alcohol level was very high, but because the test did not follow the right rules, it could not be trusted as evidence in the trial. Since this test result was important for the case, the court could not ignore the mistake, which led them to reverse his conviction. They decided that Robison should have a new trial where this evidence would not be used against him. The second argument about the lawyer's performance was not needed since the court ordered a new trial. The final decision meant that Robison would go back to court for a fresh trial without the improper blood test evidence. The judges' opinions on the new trial varied, with one judge expressing disagreement with reversing the conviction based on the blood test's results.

Continue ReadingF 2006-443

J-2008-02

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.

Continue ReadingJ-2008-02

F-2005-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1161

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

S-2005-1250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1250, Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assaulting a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling, which had granted Dinkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during an illegal search. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1250

S-2005-1067

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1067

F-2005-700

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

Continue ReadingF-2005-700

F-2005-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1057, Saul Mintz appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that while his conviction was affirmed, his sentence for the second count should be modified to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1057

F-2005-357

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-357, Bruce Morris Barnett appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that while the trial judge made a mistake by imposing a fine of $100,000 instead of the minimum fine of $25,000, the convictions were upheld. The judge's sentence was modified to change the fine, but the overall decision affirmed the jury's findings regarding the evidence for the convictions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-357

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F-2004-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

Continue ReadingF-2004-767

F 2004-1182

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1182

F-2004-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1261

F-2005-314

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.

Continue ReadingF-2005-314