Jurisdiction

F-2005-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-232, Timothy Mark Dunivan appealed his conviction for sexually abusing a minor and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for child abuse but affirmed the convictions for sexually abusing a minor. One judge dissented. To explain a little more, Timothy was found guilty of hurting and abusing his minor daughter in serious ways over several years. The case involved very serious charges, and a jury in Tulsa County agreed with the accusations against him. As a result, he was sentenced to many years in prison and also had to pay fines. Timothy argued that he should not have been charged because too much time had passed since the crimes occurred. He believed that the law didn't apply in his case due to what is called the statute of limitations. However, the court found that for the sexual abuse charges, the time limit to charge him was still valid, so those charges stuck. On the other hand, for the child abuse charges, they decided that quite a bit of time had passed, and so those charges were dropped. Throughout this process, there was a lot of discussion about the laws and how they applied to the case. The court also looked at the evidence provided during the trial and found that it was indeed acceptable to use some evidence from before the time period in which he was charged to show a pattern of behavior. In the end, while Timothy's very serious sentence for abusing his daughter stayed, he ended up having fewer charges against him after the appeal.

Continue ReadingF-2005-232

C-2005-311

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence.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.

Continue ReadingC-2005-311

RE 2005-0315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

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.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0315

RE 2005-0473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0473, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences because the hearing was not held within the required twenty days. The appellant had a dissenting opinion.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0473

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

RE-2004-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-1015

RE-2004-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-812

F-2003-1136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1136, Ernest Lynn appealed his conviction for Possession of Firearms After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Lynn had been tried in a bench trial, where he was not found guilty of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm but was convicted on another charge. He received a one-year prison sentence. Lynn argued that the trial court was wrong to convict him based on facts not presented in the original charges and that self-defense was not properly considered. He also contended that the gun found in a warrantless search should not have been used against him. The court looked at the record and saw that there was no big mistake in how the charge was presented, as Lynn admitted to having the gun. They did not agree with Lynn's claim that his mother's consent to the search was not voluntary, stating that he had no right to challenge the search. Therefore, they found no fault in how the trial court handled the case. Lynn further argued that he should be able to use self-defense as a reason for possessing the firearm. He wanted the court to allow a justification defense where a person can temporarily take a gun from an attacker to protect themselves. The court noted that other laws allow people to defend themselves, and it seemed unfair that a convicted felon could not defend their life. In the end, while the court could not change the outcome of the bench trial immediately, they remanded the case back to the district court to look at whether Lynn's self-defense claim could be valid in this situation. Thus, more hearings would be needed to determine the facts and make a final decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1136

F-2003-633

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.

Continue ReadingF-2003-633

F 2003-1078

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1078, Joseph Lee Rick Knight appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. However, it ordered a remand to the District Court of Creek County to vacate certain costs associated with the charges for which Knight was acquitted or not prosecuted. One judge dissented. Joseph Knight was found guilty after a bench trial, which means there was no jury, and the judge made the decision. The trial took place over several days, and Knight was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with nine years to be served and the rest suspended. Knight argued four main points in his appeal. First, he said that his arrest and the search of his home were not done lawfully. The court disagreed, stating that the search was allowed because Knight's wife gave permission, meaning the police did not need a warrant. Secondly, Knight claimed that he did not truly understand what it meant to give up his right to a jury trial. The court found that he had given up this right knowingly, so this point was also denied. The third point Knight made was that he could not cross-examine his co-defendant, whose statements were used against him. The court decided this was not a problem because the judge said those statements would only be considered for the co-defendant. Lastly, Knight believed that his sentence was too harsh. The court said the sentence was appropriate based on the laws and did not seem unfair. In summary, the court upheld Knight's conviction and kept his sentence the same but ordered some of the costs to be canceled because he was not convicted on all charges.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1078

RE 2003-0106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0106, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation in one case and affirm it in another. One judge dissented. The appellant had a history of legal issues. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a five-year deferred sentence. This means he would not go to jail immediately but had to follow certain rules for those five years. In 1999, he pleaded guilty again, this time for having a firearm as a felon. After some time, a hearing took place to see if the appellant broke the rules of his suspended sentences. The court decided to take away part of his suspended sentence in both cases. However, the appellant argued that the court should not have been able to do that because his first sentence had already expired before the new hearing, making it unfair to revoke it. The court looked into this and agreed with the appellant on the first case, stating they had no right to take away the suspended sentence because it was no longer valid. However, for the second case, they found that the state had followed the proper steps and had the right to revoke his suspended sentence there. In the end, the court told the lower court to dismiss the revocation for the first case, but they maintained the revocation for the second case.

Continue ReadingRE 2003-0106

RE-2003-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-640, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The appellant had a one-year suspended sentence, and the State filed a request to revoke it. The appellant said he did not do anything wrong and pleaded not guilty. A hearing took place, and the court decided to revoke his sentence. The appellant then appealed this decision. Later, the court found that the first court should not have revoked the sentence because of a timing issue. The appellant's waiver to shorten the waiting period was not done on time. Since this was a mistake, the appeals court decided to dismiss the request to revoke his sentence and canceled the earlier decision. As a result, the appellant's original sentence was not revoked, and he was no longer under that revoked sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-640

F-2002-1561

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1561

RE 2002-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.

Continue ReadingRE 2002-1124

F 2002-809

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-809, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Russell Andrew Doza was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine and possessing a firearm during a felony. The trial took place in Logan County, where the judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for the drug charge and two years for the firearm charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. The main point of the appeal was whether the police officers had the right to search his car. The appellant argued that the officers were outside their legal area when they conducted the search. The court agreed with him, referencing a previous case that stated police cannot perform searches outside their jurisdiction. Because the evidence used against him was obtained unlawfully, the court found there was not enough evidence to support his convictions. Therefore, they reversed the lower court's decision and instructed that the case be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-809

RE-2002-174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.

Continue ReadingRE-2002-174

F 2001-962

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-962, Chester Creller, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Incest. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy but reversed the conviction for Incest. One judge dissented. Creller was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses in a trial in Muskogee County. The jury decided on heavy punishments for the crimes: 100 years for Rape, 20 years for Oral Sodomy, and 10 years for Incest. The judge planned for the sentences for Rape and Oral Sodomy to be served one after the other, while the Incest sentence would happen at the same time as the Rape sentence. Creller took his case to a higher court, arguing several points. He claimed that the court should not have tried his case, that changes made to the case were unfair, that there were problems with how the victim's testimony was used, that he should not have been convicted of both Rape and Incest for the same act, and that the way evidence was handled did not guarantee him a fair trial. The higher court carefully looked over all the arguments and decided that Creller's claim about his convictions for Rape and Incest being based on the same action was valid. Therefore, they overturned the Incest conviction but found that the other points he raised did not change the overall outcome. The court confirmed that the trial was handled correctly in most ways and said that even though there were some mistakes, they did not affect the right decision because there was strong evidence against Creller. The decision also stated that the prosecution's closing arguments did not unfairly influence the jury because the defense did not object during the trial. In summary, Creller's sentence for Incest was dismissed, but he still faced very long sentences for the other charges.

Continue ReadingF 2001-962

F 2001-873

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-873, Jerome Wade Hennesy appealed his conviction for Trafficking in a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. In this case, Jerome Wade Hennesy was found guilty of trafficking cocaine by a jury. The jury decided he should serve ten years in prison and pay a fine of $25,000. Hennesy appealed, arguing that the evidence used against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt and that there was unfair evidence related to other crimes. The court agreed with Hennesy on the second point about the unfair evidence, saying it was a serious mistake that affected the trial. The judges mentioned that since the evidence against him was mostly based on circumstances and not very strong, the mistake couldn't be ignored. They decided that Hennesy needed a new trial, so he could have a fair chance to defend himself. The judges noted that the first point about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt was no longer important because they were giving him a new trial based on the unfair evidence. They expected the state to have stronger evidence if Hennesy was tried again. So, they made the decision to reverse the previous judgment and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-873

F-2001-759

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.

Continue ReadingF-2001-759

F-2002-324

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.

Continue ReadingF-2002-324

RE 2001-0663

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0663, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the Appellant had previously pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of five years for the first two counts and a one-year suspended sentence for the third count. A suspended sentence means that the person does not have to serve time in jail unless they break the rules. Later, the State wanted to take back the suspended sentences because they believed the Appellant broke the rules. They filed an application for revocation, and a hearing was held. The judge decided to revoke the five-year suspended sentences for the first two counts but found that the one-year sentence for the third count had already expired. The judge also ordered that the new sentences would run consecutively with any new cases the Appellant might have. This means that the Appellant would serve time for the revocation and also for any new offenses afterward without merging those sentences. However, the Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the five-year sentences to run consecutively with new cases. The higher court agreed with the Appellant's argument and said the judge made a mistake in this part of the decision. The court affirmed the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences but modified the sentence to remove the part about running consecutively. This means the Appellant would still be punished for breaking the rules, but they wouldn't have to serve their new sentences one after the other in this case. The court instructed the lower court to update the judgment to reflect this change. In summary, while the Appellant's suspended sentences were revoked, the way the new sentences were to be served was changed. The final decision supported the revocation, but clarified the terms of the punishment.

Continue ReadingRE 2001-0663

F-2000-1339

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1339, Harold Lee Cooper, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court affirmed his conviction for possession of cocaine but reversed and dismissed the conviction for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1339

F 2000-862

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.

Continue ReadingF 2000-862

F-2000-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1308

RE 2000-1170

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-1170