In OCCA case No. F-2017-1203, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him, based on a prior ruling regarding Indian territory laws. One judge dissented, expressing concerns about the implications of the ruling and the handling of precedents.
In OCCA case No. F-2020-208, Ryan Cortland Johnson appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Ryan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, meaning he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He argued that the state court did not have the right to try him based on a Supreme Court decision from 2020 called McGirt v. Oklahoma. In this case, it was determined that certain crimes committed by members of federally recognized tribes on tribal land could not be prosecuted in state courts. Ryan Johnson claimed he was a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the murder happened on Creek Nation tribal land, which is considered a reservation. The court allowed him to challenge its jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, but the parties involved agreed on certain facts, which meant a hearing was not necessary. They confirmed that Ryan is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the crime took place on land owned by the Creek Nation. After reviewing the facts, the district court found that Ryan is indeed an Indian under federal law and that the crime took place in the Creek Nation boundaries. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to charge him with murder based on the findings in the McGirt case. Because of this ruling, the court granted Ryan's appeal, decided the state court had no jurisdiction, and instructed that the case be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2020-46, Robert William Perry, II appealed his conviction for five counts of sexual abuse of a child under 12. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Perry was originally found guilty and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including life imprisonment. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes. This claim was supported by federal law and a recent Supreme Court decision. The court agreed to hold a hearing to look into Perry's status as an Indian and whether the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, which is a federally recognized tribe. During the hearing, both parties agreed on certain facts: Perry was a registered member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and had tribal blood, and the crimes occurred within that Nation's historical boundaries. The lower court found that Perry is considered an Indian under the law and confirmed that the crimes happened on the reservation. Following this, the appeals court determined that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Perry based on the legal principles established in the recent Supreme Court case. Therefore, the appeal led to the decision to reverse Perry's conviction and dismiss the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-78, Jordan Batice Mitchell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. This means that the court could not judge this case because it involved issues concerning his status as an Indian and the location of the crime being within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The finding was based on a previous case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affected how certain crimes involving Native Americans are prosecuted. Consequently, the court vacated Mitchell's sentence and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. There was a dissenting opinion regarding the decision, as one judge expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling.
In OCCA case No. RE-2018-1233, Joice appealed his conviction for obtaining cash or merchandise by bogus check/false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order revoking Joice's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke with prejudice. One judge dissented. Joice had originally entered a guilty plea in 2013 for writing a bogus check and received a twenty-year sentence, which was all suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules of his probation. However, in 2018, the State claimed he broke the rules of his probation and sought to revoke his suspended sentence. During the hearings, Joice argued that the original sentence was too long and that the State filed their application to revoke his probation too late. He also said his lawyer did not help him properly by not questioning the judge’s decision to revoke his sentence. The court agreed there were major issues with his original sentence and that the State was too late in trying to revoke it. They found that Joice did not get good legal help at his revocation hearing. Since the court recognized that the original sentence was illegal and the State's request to change it came too late, they decided to dismiss the application to revoke Joice’s probation. This means he won't have to serve time because the conditions under which his probation could be revoked were not met correctly.
In OCCA case No. PC 2017-755, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the previous sentence and allow for resentencing with a jury. The dissenting opinions argued against the majority decision, indicating that the judge had the discretion to deny jury resentencing based on prior waivers. The case started when the petitioner was just seventeen years old and pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder in 2006. Originally, he was sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole. After some time, he claimed that this sentence was unfair because he was a minor when he was sentenced. The court agreed and decided to let him be resentenced but had to deal with the issue of whether his resentencing should involve a jury. The petitioner argued that since he was seeking resentencing, he should be allowed a jury trial. However, the state disagreed, pointing out that he had waived his right to a jury trial when he originally pleaded guilty. The judge decided that because of this waiver, he didn’t have to give the petitioner a jury for resentencing. In this case, the court looked at previous decisions that said when a juvenile is sentenced to life without parole, they should have a jury trial unless they give up that right. The majority of the court found that the petitioner did not truly waive his right to a jury for the resentencing, as he was relying on new rules from recent important cases. Ultimately, the court decided that it was wrong for the judge to deny the jury resentencing. They chose to vacate that decision and said the case should go back to the lower court to figure out the right way to do the resentencing, with the ability to include a jury if the petitioner asked. The dissenting opinions argued that the judge had actually acted correctly by denying the request for a jury because the petitioner had already waived that right back when he pleaded guilty. They believed that the rules shouldn’t allow a person to change their mind long after the original decision. The court ordered that the petitioner’s guilty plea and conviction were still valid, but they needed to follow the correct process under the law for the new sentencing.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0315, #Matthews appealed his conviction for #Burglary. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to vacate the two-year sentence imposed in CF-1999-365, affirm the acceleration of the deferred sentence in CF-2003-14, and affirm the termination from Drug Court. #None dissented. Kevin Paul Matthews got into trouble with the law a while back. He pled no contest to a charge for running a roadblock and was given a sentence where he didn’t have to spend much time in prison right away. Instead, he was supposed to follow certain rules and help the community. However, he later messed up by not completing his required community service. Then, he got into even more trouble and pleaded guilty to burglary, agreeing to join a special program called Drug Court instead of going straight to prison. This program was meant to help him get better. But after some time, the State said he wasn’t following the rules and asked the judge to send him to prison instead. The judge agreed and decided Matthews needed to go to prison for more time, ruling that any previous time he served didn’t count towards his new sentence. Matthews felt that the judge made mistakes and that he shouldn't have been punished as harshly as he was. Matthews brought his case to a higher court, saying the judge didn't have the right to put him back in prison for the earlier offense because too much time had passed. He also said the judge shouldn’t have made him wait so long without setting an end date to his drug treatment program. Ultimately, the higher court agreed that the judge had made an error in punishing Matthews without accounting for the time he had already served. However, they kept the part where Matthews had to go to prison for his burglary charge because he had failed to follow the rules of the Drug Court. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for more review about what should happen next. So, in the end, Matthews got relief on some of his issues, but not all, showing that while he had some rights, he still needed to take responsibility for his actions.