In OCCA case No. C-2009-865, Floyd Reid appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision not to let Reid withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-15, Alfred Burke, Jr. appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Burke was found guilty in Oklahoma County and received a very long sentence of 273 years for each crime, to be served one after the other. This was due to previous convictions he had. Burke disagreed with his punishment and claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. He argued that a law he was judged under was unfair and went against his rights. He also said that evidence from a previous case should not have been shown in court. He thought his sentence was too harsh and believed that evidence from other crimes made the trial unfair. Finally, he believed that all the errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court looked closely at all of Burke's arguments. They found that the law he challenged was not unconstitutional. Most of the evidence against him was strong, especially the testimony from the person he victimized and DNA proof of his actions. However, the court agreed that showing evidence of his past crime likely impacted the jury's choice on punishment more than it should have. As a result, they changed his punishment to life imprisonment for both crimes, but now those sentences would be served at the same time instead of one after the other. The judges concluded that while there were some mistakes, they did not think these mistakes were enough to change his convictions. One judge did not agree with changing the sentences at all, believing the previous evidence was important for the case.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment.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.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-1165, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated his participation in the Drug Court program and instructed to reinstate him into the program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to two charges related to drug possession in 2003 and was given a sentence with most of it suspended. After allegations of new violations in 2006, he entered the Drug Court program, which aimed to help him stay away from drugs. However, the State filed to terminate him from the program in 2007, claiming he violated the rules. During the appeal, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by ending his participation in Drug Court. The court considered whether the reasons for termination were valid. The violations included not completing community service, not writing sentences for a sanction, and not bringing a required book to a meeting. However, evidence showed that the appellant was making progress, had a job, and had been clean for a good period. The court found that the claimed violations weren't enough to justify removing him from the program because there was no clear deadline for completing the tasks. The court emphasized that relapses can happen during rehabilitation and that participants should be given chances to improve. Ultimately, they believed that the appellant was still on the right path and deserved to stay in the Drug Court program. The decision was to reverse the termination and allow the appellant to continue with the program. The dissenting opinion argued that the appellant had not followed the rules enough and that the court had to be strict to help him take responsibility for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-340, Robert Dewayne Hayes, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder Youthful Offender, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, but reversed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.
In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-362, Pat Lee Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Pat Lee Richardson was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter after a trial without a jury in Comanche County. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had a defense based on Oklahoma's Make My Day Law, which allows people to use force against intruders in their homes. Richardson claimed the victim was an intruder when he was stabbed. The court explained that the Make My Day Law applies only when someone enters a home, but the victim was standing on the porch, not inside the house. Therefore, Richardson could not use that law as a defense. The court also noted that stabbing the victim a second time while he was on the ground was not justified. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not provide good assistance by not presenting the Make My Day Law defense. However, the court believed this did not affect the outcome of his trial since the law did not apply to his case. He also argued that his actions were justifiable as self-defense. The court stated that there was no evidence to show that he was in danger at the moment he stabbed the victim, considering the victim presented no serious threat. Lastly, Richardson argued that his 35-year sentence was too harsh. The court agreed and modified his sentence to 20 years, feeling that the original sentence was shocking and too severe when taking into account certain factors of the case. Overall, the court upheld the guilty verdict but decided to reduce the prison time that Pat Lee Richardson would have to serve.
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.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-0328, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and distribution of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, who was 19 years old, pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year deferred sentence in each case after completing a rehabilitation program. However, the state later sought to accelerate these sentences due to alleged violations of probation. During a hearing, the judge concluded that the appellant had not complied with conditions and imposed a lengthy sentence of twenty-five years for each charge, running consecutively. The appellant argued several points on appeal. He claimed that the acceleration hearing was unfair because he did not have a lawyer to help him. The court agreed that he had not properly waived his right to counsel. The judge's decision to proceed without an attorney was found to be incorrect, as there was no evidence that the appellant could afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the court noted that there were other errors in the process that impacted the fairness of the hearing. The appellate court found merit in the appellant's first argument about not having a lawyer and therefore reversed the acceleration of his sentences. The judges on the panel emphasized that if a new hearing takes place, the appellant must be represented by a lawyer and informed of his rights regarding any plea agreements.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-593, the Appellant appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the Appellant, after pleading guilty to Sexual Battery, was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions. However, he did not follow these conditions, leading to the State filing a motion to revoke his suspended sentence multiple times. Initially, the Appellant missed treatment sessions, failed to pay necessary fees, and showed a lack of effort to engage in his treatment. After some violations, he had a short revocation of sixty days. Later, the State found he had violated other conditions, such as not registering as a sex offender and changing his residence without informing his probation officer. During the hearing, the judge decided that the Appellant had not followed the rules, thus revoking his suspended sentence and requiring him to serve five years in prison. The Appellant argued that since he had already lost sixty days, his remaining time should be less than five years. The State agreed, stating it should be four years and ten months instead. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s previous short revocation and made the necessary adjustment to his sentence length. Although the Appellant argued the full revocation was too harsh, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that it was within their discretion to revoke the sentence based on the Appellant's repeated failures to comply with probation rules. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke the Appellant's remaining suspended sentence but corrected the duration of time he was required to serve.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.