Judicial Discretion Archives - Page 3 of 5

C-2014-254

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 13, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

S-2013-696

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.

J-2014-108

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2014
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-108, C.E.B. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's sentencing order. A dissenting opinion was not noted. C.E.B. was charged as a youthful offender when he was only 15 years old for serious offenses involving a younger relative. He initially pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to a rehabilitation program rather than prison. His time in the program was monitored by the Office of Juvenile Affairs, which recommended that he could successfully complete his treatment. The court emphasized that upon successful completion, charges could be dismissed. Despite showing progress and completing his treatment program, the District Court later sentenced C.E.B. to prison as an adult, which contradicted the earlier agreements regarding his rehabilitation. The State had initially indicated that his completion of the program would lead to dismissal, yet pursued a harsher sentence instead. The Appeals Court found that the lower court abused its discretion. C.E.B. had completed his rehabilitation successfully, and there was no extensive evidence to suggest he posed a threat that would require adult sentencing. The State failed to follow the proper procedures for transferring him to adult custody and should not have ignored the earlier agreements about his rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court ordered that C.E.B.'s case be dismissed, his name removed from the sex offender registry, and that his record be expunged. He was to be released from custody right away, confirming the importance of fair legal processes, especially for youthful offenders.

S-2013-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-687, the appellant appealed his conviction for DUI manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death. Two justices dissented from the decision. The case involved an incident that took place on October 11, 2012, when the appellee was charged with first-degree manslaughter. This charge stemmed from the accidental death of his wife, Linda Vaughan, while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Vaughan was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .14, and that his wife had exited the truck he was driving. She was killed when he accidentally ran over her. Vaughan argued that the state's evidence failed to show that his driving while intoxicated was the direct cause of Linda's death. Testimony from a highway patrolman indicated that while Vaughan may have been more aware of his surroundings if he were sober, Linda's death would have occurred regardless of his intoxication. The court examined whether the state had presented enough evidence to prove that the appellee's actions directly caused the victim's death. They found that the evidence showed Linda made the choice to leave the vehicle and that her death was caused by her own actions, not by the appellee's impaired driving. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of DUI manslaughter, the court upheld the decision of the lower court, which had granted Vaughan's demurrer, meaning they did not find probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to support the charge against Vaughan. The decision did not minimize the tragedy of the accident but emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases.

J-2013-87

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 22, 2013
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2013-87, J.C.T. appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order bridging him to the Department of Corrections and stated that he should be sentenced to twelve years, suspended, and granted credit for time served. One judge dissented. J.C.T. was charged as a youthful offender in 2011 and initially received a twelve-year sentence that was suspended as part of a plea agreement. He was supposed to enter a rehabilitation program. However, after allegations of serious misconduct, the State moved to transfer him to adult custody. A hearing was held to determine whether his actions warranted this change. The court reviewed the evidence and ultimately decided that the state had established a valid reason for transferring J.C.T. to the Department of Corrections. He was found guilty of not complying with the original terms of his sentence. The law allowed for such a transfer based on his behavior while under supervision. During the appeal, J.C.T. raised several issues. He argued that the trial court had misused its discretion by changing the suspension of his sentence to actual time in prison. J.C.T. believed he should only receive the suspended sentence as originally agreed upon. The court had to look at the invalidity of the new sentence imposed and the interpretation of relevant statutes regarding youthful offenders. Ultimately, the OCCA concluded that the district court needed to resentence J.C.T. to follow what was originally agreed—a suspended sentence of twelve years—and provide time served. This ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws surrounding youthful offenders and the limits on sentencing options upon being bridged to the Department of Corrections. One judge agreed with the majority but argued that the district court had made a correct decision in sentencing J.C.T. to the twelve-year prison term because it reflected a consequence of his violating the terms of his original agreement. However, another judge believed the initial ruling should stand without any changes.

S-2013-413

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

S-2013-415

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.

S-2012-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

S-2013-127

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-127, Isaac Paul Bell appealed his conviction for Possession of a Weapon on School Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that quashed and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Isaac Paul Bell was accused of having a weapon on school property, which is against the law in Oklahoma. Bell filed a motion to have the charges dropped, and the judge agreed, deciding that the charges could not stand. The state of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision and appealed, arguing that the police had enough reasons to stop and search Bell. The state presented three reasons why they thought the dismissal was wrong. First, they argued that because there were weapons in plain sight, the police had a good reason to stop Bell. Second, they claimed that Bell agreed to let the police search his car after they asked him about other weapons, and that was okay. Finally, they said the court made a mistake by dismissing the charges when they believed there was enough proof to continue the case. The reviewing court looked carefully at all parts of the situation. They understood that officers must have a good reason to stop someone and that the police had to follow rules when stopping and searching a person. The court found that the officer did not have a strong enough reason to stop Bell. When the officer saw the knives in Bell's truck, there was no reason to think Bell was doing anything wrong because he had not broken any laws, and the knives were properly stored. The court also considered whether Bell's agreement to let police search his truck was valid since he had already been detained wrongly. They decided that Bell's consent was not free and voluntary because it happened immediately after the wrongful detention. Since Bell was handcuffed and questioned by an armed officer without being informed of his rights, the court determined that his consent did not fix the problem caused by the illegal detention. Because of how they resolved the first two points, the third point from the state was no longer important. Therefore, they affirmed the decision to dismiss the case against Bell.

F-2012-172

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 24, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-172, Mark Wallace Williams appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of material with intent to manufacture, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for attempted burglary from 14 years to 10 years. One judge dissented. Williams was arrested after being found in a vehicle at the scene of a reported burglary. He argued that his arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained should not have been used against him. The court disagreed, ruling that there was enough probable cause for the arrest. Williams also challenged the searches of his car, particularly the trunk, claiming they were unlawful. The court recognized some issues with the search but determined that the evidence could still be used because the police would have found it during an inventory search of the car. During the trial, Williams made statements to police which he later contested as improperly admitted. The court found any potential error harmless given the other evidence presented against him. Further, Williams argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support his conviction for attempted burglary, but the court found that evidence, including his actions and items found with him, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude he was attempting to commit a crime. He also claimed that jury instructions were mistaken about his prior convictions, but the court held that these errors did not harm his case significantly. Williams raised concerns about his competence to stand trial, and the court reviewed multiple evaluations of his mental health history. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that he was competent to stand trial. Additionally, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he could not have waived his right to counsel due to incompetence. The court found no merit to this assertion, concluding that Williams did indeed understand and make a valid choice to represent himself. Overall, the court affirmed most of Williams' convictions, modified one sentence, denied a request to supplement the record, and found no grounds for a new trial or hearing on these matters.

RE 2012-0575

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0575, Greenlow appealed his conviction for several offenses, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and false impersonation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Greenlow's suspended sentences but ordered a remand to modify one of his sentences due to it being longer than the law allows. One judge dissented.

F-2011-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.

F-2011-473

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.

S-2012-554

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Frank Lee Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Sheila Carol Johnson. Johnson also appealed her conviction in a related case, S-2012-554. The court found that the law enforcement officers did not execute the search warrant in a timely manner as required, which led to the suppression of the evidence. The judge's determination was based on the conclusion that the search was not conducted immediately as directed by the issuing judge, and therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, sustaining the motions to suppress. No dissenting opinion was filed.

S-2012-553

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug possession and distribution. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that evidence obtained during a search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Johnson should be suppressed. Johnson dissented. The case started when police met with an informant who said they could buy methamphetamine from Armstrong. The police observed a controlled purchase of drugs and later obtained a search warrant for Armstrong's home. They executed this search warrant a few days later and found Armstrong and Johnson in a car outside his residence, where they discovered several drug-related items. Both Armstrong and Johnson hired the same lawyer and filed motions to suppress the evidence from the car search. The district court agreed with their argument that the police had not executed the search warrant immediately, as the warrant required. Because of this, the court decided the search was not valid. The appeals court looked into whether the district court had made a mistake. They decided that the court did not abuse its discretion and confirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence. This means that the evidence collected during the search could not be used against them in court. The court emphasized that the terms of the warrant were not followed as required. The ruling highlighted the importance of following legal procedures when executing search warrants. In summary, Armstrong's appeal was not successful, and the ruling to suppress the evidence was upheld.

RE-2011-606

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 4, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.

RE-2011-710

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 3, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.

C-2012-714

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-714, the petitioner appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for larceny but to reverse and remand the conviction for resisting an officer. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Darrell Odell Golden was charged with stealing merchandise from a department store and for resisting arrest after being approached by law enforcement. Golden stole items valued over $1,000, and when police tried to arrest him, he ran away. Golden pled guilty to both charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was confused about his possible sentence and that he did not understand the charges properly. The court found that while Golden’s plea for larceny was valid, his plea for resisting an officer lacked evidence of the required force or violence, which is necessary to support that charge. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea for that particular count but upheld his conviction for larceny. Ultimately, the decision meant that Golden will keep his larceny conviction and its associated penalties, but the charge of resisting an officer was overturned, allowing for further legal proceedings on that matter.

F-2010-555

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-555, Keighton Jon Budder appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape (Counts I and III), Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count II), and Forcible Oral Sodomy (Count IV). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences for Counts I and III to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.

F-2010-466

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.

RE-2010-9

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 3, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.

RE-2010-293

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 22, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.

S-2009-858

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

F-2009-407

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 29, 2010
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.

C-2010-77

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 13, 2010
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.