Judicial Notice

F-2018-901

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-901

RE-2018-645

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **ANTWOIN LEE WALKER, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-645** **Summary Opinion** **File Date: December 12, 2019** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Antwoin Lee Walker appeals the full revocation of his six-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2015-675 by District Judge Paul Hesse of the Canadian County District Court. **Background:** On October 27, 2015, Walker pled guilty to Petit Larceny (Count 1) and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 2), resulting in a six-month county jail sentence on Count 1 and a ten-year sentence on Count 2, with four years suspended. On May 30, 2017, the State filed to revoke his suspended sentence, citing new charges including Attempt to Kill, Rape in the First Degree, and two instances of Petit Larceny, in Case No. CF-2017-445. Walker was subsequently convicted on May 10, 2018, of all counts in that case. During a hearing on June 19, 2018, which combined revocation and sentencing phases, Judge Hesse considered evidence from the jury trial and sentenced Walker to life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, among others. In the revocation portion, Walker’s attorney agreed to incorporate the trial evidence in assessing the probation violation. Judge Hesse found Walker had violated his probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full, ordering it to run concurrently with his sentences from Case No. CF-2017-445. **Proposition of Error:** Walker asserts the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of evidence from the prior trial. **Analysis:** The appellate court finds that there was no judicial notice taken. Walker consented to the combination of hearings and did not object to the incorporation of trial evidence into the revocation proceedings. The court notes the distinction from precedent cases, as Walker's situation involves a combined hearing rather than separate unrelated proceedings. Given that the trial court is afforded discretion in revocation matters and there was no abuse of that discretion, the court ultimately finds no reversible error. **Decision:** The order revoking Walker’s six-year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED. **Appearances:** - **For the Appellant:** Craig Corgan, Sarah MacNiven - **For the State:** Eric Epplin, Mike Hunter, Theodore M. Peeper **Opinion by:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **Note:** For the full opinion, see [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-645_1734427729.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-645

F-2017-1301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1301, William Curtis Box appealed his conviction for Aggravated Domestic Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred judgment, which meant that his earlier decision to defer judgment was changed to a conviction. One judge dissented. The case started when Box was found guilty of a crime related to domestic violence and was given a deferred judgment, meaning he wouldn’t have a criminal record if he followed certain conditions for ten years. However, he did not follow those conditions and committed another crime called Obstructing an Officer. When the State of Oklahoma found out, they asked the court to change his deferred judgment to a conviction. Box argued that his probation should not be accelerated because the court did not have a written list of rules for his probation. He referred to previous cases from 1969 and 1970 which ruled in favor of defendants when there were no signed probation rules. However, the court explained that in later cases, they decided that a person on probation should understand they cannot commit any further crimes, even without a written agreement. Box also asked to withdraw his agreement to the State's application to change his probation status but could not find any laws that allowed him to do so. The court noted that a stipulation, or agreement, to accelerate a deferred judgment is different from things like guilty pleas, and there is no established way to take back such an agreement. Moreover, Box claimed that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court stated that during an acceleration appeal, they can only examine whether the acceleration was lawful, not whether the sentence was too long. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to accelerate Box's judgment to a conviction based on his probation violation. They found no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the lower court in making this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1301

F-2017-1189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1189, Lawrence Raymond Silver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Solicitation for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the district court. One judge dissented. The case started when Silver was tried and found guilty of trying to get someone to commit murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for thirty-seven years. During the trial, Silver raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that the prosecutor said some unfair things that hurt his chances for a fair trial. However, the court found that these comments were not serious enough to make the trial unfair, and there was no error. Silver also thought that he should not have received three years of supervision after leaving prison since the law said this only applied to specific crimes. The court agreed that there was an error, but the trial judge later fixed it, reducing the supervision time to nine months to a year. Because this was corrected, Silver did not need any more relief on this issue. Additionally, Silver claimed that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the trial. The court explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Silver needed to prove that if the lawyer had done better, the result of the trial would have been different. Since the court didn't find any of the previous claims valid, they decided that his lawyer's work couldn't be judged as ineffective. Finally, Silver said that even if no single issue mattered on its own, the overall mistakes during the trial combined to deny him a fair trial. The court ruled that without any valid individual mistakes, his claim for cumulative errors was groundless. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and sentence against Silver, and his request for further testing of his lawyer's assistance was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1189

F-2017-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1030, Polo Carrillo appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Polo Carrillo was found guilty on several serious charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on three charges, with an additional year on the domestic assault charge. He raised several arguments on appeal, including issues with the evidence presented during his trial and concerns about whether he received a fair trial. One point of contention was the trial court's decision to allow a nurse to read a report during the trial that included what the victim had stated about the incident. Carrillo argued that this was hearsay and unnecessary since there was other testimony about the same information. The court determined that the nurse's statements were allowed because they related to medical treatment, which is an exception to hearsay rules. Another argument Carrillo made was about the court's ruling regarding the disclosure of certain witnesses' information. The trial court had allowed the victim's address to be withheld for safety reasons. The court pointed out that Carrillo was able to communicate with the victim without knowing her home address. Thus, the court concluded that the ruling did not harm his defense. Carrillo also claimed that photographs shown to the jury were redundant and biased against him, but the court found that these images were important in showing the victim's injuries and supported the testimony, so they were allowed. Further, Carrillo argued that the jury was not given the correct instructions regarding post-imprisonment supervision. The court indicated that the instructions given were generally proper since the jury couldn't recommend a sentence lower than two years, ruling that errors were not affecting the trial's outcome. At sentencing, there was an error in how Carrillo's time served was recorded. However, this was later corrected by the District Attorney’s office, making this issue no longer relevant. Finally, Carrillo claimed that even if individual errors in the trial did not deserve a new trial, the cumulative effect of these errors should. The court disagreed, stating that since there were no errors that warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim also failed. In summary, the court affirmed Carrillo's convictions, indicating that he did not suffer an unfair trial despite the various arguments he raised on appeal. The decision was backed by careful consideration of the law and the facts presented during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1030

J-2015-353

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2015-353

RE-2013-555

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-555, Waylon Dean Snyder appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana within 1,000 Feet from a Park or School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of Snyder from the Drug Court Program and the corresponding order of revocation of his sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Snyder entered a guilty plea on March 11, 2009, and was sentenced to five years in prison, with a condition that most of the sentence would be suspended if he followed specific probation rules. Unfortunately, he did not comply with these rules, leading to a motion filed by the State to revoke his sentence. The court allowed him to enter a Drug Court Program instead of serving time in prison, with the understanding that failing this program would lead to starting his prison sentence. Snyder admitted to struggling with some of the conditions in the Drug Court program but attended regularly and participated in court activities. Despite some positive attendance, problems arose when he allegedly violated more conditions, which led to a motion to terminate him from Drug Court. When the State sought to terminate Snyder's participation in Drug Court, Snyder raised the argument that he had not received written notice detailing the specific violations being used against him for this termination. This lack of notice was crucial because, according to the law, Snyder was entitled to know the reasons behind the State's actions. The court reviewed the earlier actions and concluded that the State did not follow the correct legal process. Specifically, they didn’t provide the necessary updated notice about his violations at this latest hearing. As a result, Snyder's termination from Drug Court was improper. Consequently, the court reversed the decision to terminate Snyder from the program, which also meant he could not be forced to serve the rest of his five-year prison sentence since that order was linked to the termination. The court instructed to dismiss the case since his time under the suspended sentence had legally expired. In conclusion, Snyder's appeal was successful, leading to the reversal of the earlier decisions and allowing him to avoid further penalties stemming from the Drug Court program.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-555

RE-2012-1076

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1076

RE 2012-0601

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0601

F-2010-1237

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1237

F-2010-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.

Continue ReadingF-2010-914

F 2010-1191

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1191, Mark A. Sanders appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and carrying a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF 2010-1191

J-2011-394

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2011-394, R.J.T. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's certification of R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution. One judge dissented. R.J.T., who turned fifteen just days before the alleged offenses, was charged in Cleveland County District Court with several counts of arson. The law allows for individuals like R.J.T. to be considered youthful offenders, meaning they could be treated differently than adults in the legal system. The Youthful Offender Act lets a young person ask to be moved to the juvenile justice system either before or during a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing on May 4, 2011, R.J.T.'s lawyer had not filed a formal request to have R.J.T. tried as a juvenile. Instead, they agreed that R.J.T. would plead guilty to being a youthful offender, which would lead to a delay in sentencing while he was on probation. However, the judge expressed concern about this agreement, questioning whether he could move R.J.T. to the juvenile system on his own if they waived the preliminary hearing. After some discussion, R.J.T. waived the preliminary hearing. The judge then proceeded to consider if R.J.T. should be certified to the juvenile system, looking into evidence including a psychological report. The judge found that R.J.T. had strong family support, no prior criminal history, and had been doing well in school. It was revealed that he had ADHD and had been removed from medication around the time of the offenses. The judge also heard that R.J.T. was shy and struggled socially but had not caused any injuries in the incidents he was accused of. At the end of the hearing, the judge decided to certify R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution after considering the guidelines established by law. This decision meant that R.J.T. would be treated more like a child than an adult in the legal system. The state then appealed this decision, believing that the judge had made mistakes. On appeal, the state argued two main points. First, they said the judge shouldn't have rejected the waiver of the preliminary hearing since it would mean R.J.T. wouldn’t be able to take the plea deal. Second, they claimed that the judge shouldn’t have certified R.J.T. as a juvenile because he considered factors not allowed by law. However, the court found that the judge acted within his rights to consider the certification issue and that he did so correctly, based on the evidence. The court noted that there was enough information to support the judge's decision. They stated that the goal of the youthful offender system is to ensure public safety while giving young people a chance for rehabilitation. The court's decision reaffirmed that R.J.T. would continue in the juvenile system, allowing for different treatment options than if he were handled as an adult. The decision was approved by most judges, but one judge disagreed, arguing that the judge had overstepped by forming conclusions without sufficient evidence being presented. In conclusion, the May 4, 2011, order certifying R.J.T. to the juvenile system was upheld by the court, which believed that this path offered the best chance for R.J.T.'s rehabilitation and the safety of the community.

Continue ReadingJ-2011-394

M 2009-1064

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.

Continue ReadingM 2009-1064

F-2005-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.

Continue ReadingF-2005-640

F-2001-1048

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1048

F-2005-392

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.

Continue ReadingF-2005-392