In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-31, Nemol Joe Fox appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense, and misdemeanor Driving Under Revocation. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. Mr. Fox entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with five years suspended, plus fines for both charges. He later asked to withdraw his plea, saying he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court found that Mr. Fox was not properly advised about the option of treatment for his drinking problem, which is allowed under the law for such cases. Because of this, the court decided that his plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. The original sentence was reversed, and Mr. Fox was granted another chance to address these issues. One judge disagreed, stating that the trial court likely considered all options, including treatment, when deciding on the sentence. The dissenting judge felt that Mr. Fox should not get to change his plea because he and his lawyer had not raised this issue earlier in court. Overall, the main decision was that Mr. Fox did not get the fair chance he should have had to understand his options, specifically regarding treatment for his alcohol issues.