Judgment

F-2004-682

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-682

F-2004-67

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-67, Marrio D'Shane Willis appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Marrio D'Shane Willis was found guilty by a jury for robbing someone while using a gun. Because he had a previous conviction, the court gave him a sentence of ten years in prison and a fine. Willis did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal. Willis claimed that his attorney did not do a good job in representing him during the trial. He said that the only witness who identified him as the robber had made a mistake and that there was evidence to support that claim which was not presented in the trial. Willis asked for another chance, known as a new trial, based on this new information. The appeals court looked into Willis's claims and sent the case back to a lower court to find more information. This lower court had a hearing where they listened to the eyewitness. During this hearing, the eyewitness changed his story and said he was not sure about his identification of Willis during the trial. He even said he thought another person might be the actual robber. The appeals court found that Willis’s attorney did not try hard enough to prove that the eyewitness might have made a mistake. They decided that if the attorney had investigated this more during the trial, it could have led to a different result. They believed Willis was treated unfairly because of his lawyer's mistakes. After reviewing everything, the appeals court reversed Willis's conviction, meaning he would not be found guilty anymore based on the trial's results. They agreed with the findings of the lower court that the eyewitness's changed testimony made it difficult to trust what he had said during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that the way Willis was represented in court was not good enough, and because of that, they decided he should not have been convicted of robbery.

Continue ReadingF-2004-67

F-2005-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2005-129

F-2004-1081

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1081, Charles Edward Moore, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and modify some sentences. One of the judges dissented. Charles Edward Moore faced serious charges and was found guilty by a jury. He received a total of fourteen years for each robbery, ten years for each kidnapping, and ten years for possession of a firearm related to a past felony. The judge ordered that Moore serve these sentences one after the other. On appeal, Moore argued several points. First, he believed he was unfairly punished for two separate robbery counts concerning the same incident. However, the court decided that this did not violate any laws about double punishments. Next, Moore claimed a conflict between his robbery conviction and the charge for possession after a felony. The court agreed with Moore regarding this point and reversed his conviction for that charge. Additionally, Moore argued that the trial court made an error by not allowing a jury instruction about his eligibility for parole. The court found this to be a mistake but decided to change the sentences for the robbery convictions from fourteen years to ten years each. The court maintained the trial judge's decision to have the sentences served consecutively. Moore also argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer, but the court believed that his case would not have ended differently even with better representation. He further disagreed with the court's admission of evidence about his past wrongdoings, but the court denied that claim too. Lastly, Moore asserted that the combined errors during his trial should lead to a reversal. The court disagreed and upheld the decisions made during the trial. In summary, while the court agreed to modify some of Moore's sentences, it affirmed most of the convictions and found no significant errors that would affect the overall outcome of the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1081

F 2004-1238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1238, James Alan Wade appealed his conviction for Embezzlement of Rented Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Mr. Wade was found guilty by a jury of embezzling a rented car and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove his prior felony convictions and that his sentence was too harsh. He also argued that his lawyer didn’t do enough to protect his rights during the trial. The court looked closely at whether there was enough proof that Mr. Wade had committed the crime he was accused of. One key point was whether the car he rented was valued correctly according to the law. The court found that the prosecution didn't provide evidence proving the car's value was over $1,000, which is necessary for the embezzlement charge. Because of this lack of evidence, the court decided that Mr. Wade should not have been convicted and ordered that the case be dismissed. The dissenting judge, however, thought that there was enough evidence for the jury to make their decision and believed the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1238

F-2004-1080

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1080

F-2004-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2004-410

J-2005-542

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-542

F-2004-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-939, the appellant appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentences for both convictions to seven years each, affirming the judgment in other respects. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-939

F-2004-1216

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1216, the appellant appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine. One judge dissented. Michael Hodges was found guilty by a jury in a district court. After the trial, he was sentenced to ten years in prison and asked to pay a $10,000 fine. He believed there were mistakes made during his trial and in how he was sentenced. Hodges raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the punishment given was not right and that the fine should have been lower. Second, he said that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which was unfair. Third, he thought that his sentence was too severe. Finally, he claimed that the court documents did not clearly show the law he had broken. After looking at all the information, the court found that Hodges's sentence was correct but changed his fine from $10,000 to $5,000. They also agreed that the official documents should be updated to correctly show the law he was convicted of breaking. The appeal did not show that he was treated unfairly during his trial, so the main conviction was kept. Overall, the court's main message was that while Hodges's sentence was mostly upheld, they also wanted to make sure he was charged the right amount for his fine and that the records reflected the correct details of his case.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1216

M-2004-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingM-2004-66

F-2003-1297

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1297, Thomas Edward Gale appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold most of his convictions but reversed one of them. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gale was found guilty of making methamphetamine and possessing certain substances that can be used to create drugs. He received a long prison sentence and a hefty fine. Gale argued that he should not have been punished twice for having two different precursor substances without a permit and also claimed that some of the evidence against him was not strong enough. The court found that Gale's actions of making meth and having precursor substances without a permit were different crimes, so it was okay for him to be convicted for both. However, they agreed that he should not have been convicted for both types of precursor substances because that counted as one crime. So, they reversed that part of the decision. The court decided that there was enough evidence to prove that Gale was keeping a place where drugs were used and sold. They also concluded that his sentence and fine were appropriate. In the end, the court upheld Gale's sentences for most of the crimes but dismissed one of the precursor possession convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1297

F-2003-717

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-717, Paul Delmer Morgan appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Morgan's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Morgan was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison and a $100,000 fine. He challenged his conviction by claiming there were six main problems with the trial. First, he argued that there was evidence shown to the jury about other crimes he committed, which he felt was unfair. Second, he said the judge should have told the jury how to use statements from a witness who had changed his story. Third, he thought the judge did not properly warn the jury about trusting the informant’s testimony. Fourth, he believed the fine he received was too high because of how the judge gave instructions to the jury. Fifth, Morgan thought that his sentence was too harsh. Lastly, he claimed that taken together, these errors made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court found that the evidence about the other crimes was closely connected to his current case, so it could be allowed. They also noted that Morgan did not object to it during the trial, which meant he could not easily argue against it now. Regarding the witness’s inconsistent statements, the court agreed that the judge should have explained this to the jury, but they ruled that it did not hurt Morgan's case. The informant's testimony was supported by other evidence, so the lack of instruction on that wasn't a problem. They also decided that the fine imposed on Morgan was too high. Instead of $100,000, they lowered it to the maximum allowed by law, which was $10,000. Finally, the court felt that a life sentence for selling a small amount of cocaine was too extreme, even with Morgan’s prior criminal record. They changed his sentence to 20 years in prison instead. In conclusion, while the court confirmed Morgan's conviction, they modified his sentence to 20 years and a $10,000 fine. However, one judge disagreed with modifying the sentence, believing that the jury had made the right decision based on the evidence they had.

Continue ReadingF-2003-717

F-2003-1316

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1316

RE-2003-902

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-902

F 2003-442

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.

Continue ReadingF 2003-442

F-2003-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-336

C-2003-845

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-845, Curtis Randall Foote appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, and Threatening an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Burglary, Intimidation of a Witness, Domestic Abuse Assault and Battery, but to reverse the conviction for Threatening an Act of Violence with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Foote had entered a no contest plea in the District Court of Grady County, where the judge sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. Foote later tried to withdraw his plea, but the court denied his request. He then appealed this denial. The court reviewed the entire case record and considered multiple reasons Foote presented for his appeal. The first issue was whether he truly entered his plea of no contest. The court found that he did intend to plead no contest, so the plea was accepted correctly by the trial court. Foote also argued that he should not have been treated as a habitual offender because his past convictions were not properly documented. While the court found that his maximum sentence was appropriate, they acknowledged an error in the judgment that needed correcting. Foote also claimed that being convicted of both Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening an Act of Violence was unfair, as they were linked. The court agreed and reversed the latter conviction. However, it determined that his other convictions were valid and based on separate actions. The court ruled that the evidence supporting his intimidation charge was sufficient, and his claim of not having proper legal representation was rejected. Ultimately, the court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, which means they did not find enough reason to change the lower court's decisions aside from the reversal of the Threatening an Act of Violence charge. They ordered some corrections to the written judgment but upheld most of the other convictions.

Continue ReadingC-2003-845

F-2003-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-719, Timothy Phipps appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Appellant's conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Phipps was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Muskogee County and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with five of those years suspended. The court found that the jury had been mistakenly instructed about the minimum punishment. They believed they were allowed to sentence him to a minimum that was not accurate due to his past conviction from Arkansas. Because of this mistake, the court changed his sentence to ten years in prison with five years suspended. The court carefully reviewed everything in the case and determined that the mistake about the punishment made a difference in how the sentence was decided.

Continue ReadingF-2003-719

SR-2003-276

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2003-276, Stephen Lee Terry appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that dismissed the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when Terry was caught secretly videotaping young girls, aged eight to twelve, at a public place. He admitted that he watched these videos for sexual gratification. The court had to decide if his actions were considered a crime under the law. For the law to apply, it needed to be proven that he looked at the body or private parts of the girls, which is one of the elements that must be shown in such cases. The trial court ruled in Terry's favor, stating that simply filming clothed girls in a public space did not meet the legal definition required for the charge against him. While Terry's actions might be seen as inappropriate or offensive, the court concluded that what he did did not violate the law according to the specific requirements set out. Thus, they confirmed the trial court's decision.

Continue ReadingSR-2003-276

F-2002-1511

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1511, Helen Rosson appealed her conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentence should only be reduced to forty-five years, not ten. Rosson was convicted after a jury trial where she was sentenced to fifty years and a large fine. She raised several issues on appeal, including being punished twice for a single event, the unfair introduction of other crimes evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and the excessive nature of her sentence. The court found her convictions did not violate double jeopardy laws, noted that the evidence of other crimes should not have been included, but concluded that it did not unfairly influence the jury's decision on guilt. The sentence was modified due to the impact that the inadmissible evidence had on the jury’s sentencing decision.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1511

M-2003-495

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.

Continue ReadingM-2003-495

F 2002-1035

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1035, Russell DeWayne Dykes appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance without a Tax Stamp Affixed. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify some of the sentences. One judge dissented. Dykes was found guilty after a bench trial. The trial was held before a judge who decided his fate. Dykes received six years of imprisonment for each of the three counts. These sentences were supposed to run at the same time. Dykes argued several issues in his appeal. First, he said that the evidence against him wasn't handled properly, which made it less reliable, and that he did not get a fair trial because of that. Second, he claimed that the evidence presented by the State did not clearly show that he had the controlled substance, meaning he shouldn’t have been convicted for that crime. Third, Dykes believed that the judge gave him sentences that were longer than the law allowed. He asked for the sentences to be changed or at least reduced. He also thought the judge should have lowered his sentence based on what was said during an earlier part of the trial. Lastly, he argued that the combined effect of all these issues led to an unfair trial. After looking closely at all of Dykes' claims and the court documents, the judges decided that Dykes did not have a strong enough argument about the chain of evidence. They believed that even though Dykes raised questions about how the evidence was handled, there was still enough proof for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. The court also agreed that although the sentences were initially longer than what was allowed, the errors could be fixed. They decided to lower the sentences: for the assault charge, Dykes would serve five years instead of six, and for the possession charge without a tax stamp, the court changed it to two years. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Dykes was guilty and solidified the evidence used, but they modified two of his sentences to fit what the law allowed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1035

F-2002-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-855, Brandon Grimland appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from one hundred years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented, believing the case should be sent back for re-sentencing. Grimland was found guilty of causing the death of another person through a beating that led to severe injuries. The trial jury recommended a very long sentence of one hundred years, but there were concerns about how the prosecutor talked about parole, which might have influenced the jury's decision. The court agreed that the way the prosecutor approached the topic was not right and decided to reduce the sentence to a more reasonable twenty-five years. While the conviction stood, the judges thought it was important to correct the sentence based on how the trial was conducted.

Continue ReadingF-2002-855

F 2001-1497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.

Continue ReadingF 2001-1497