Jurisdiction

F 2000-740

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.

Continue ReadingF 2000-740

MA-2001-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.

Continue ReadingMA-2001-117

RE 2000-0688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0688

RE 2000-0434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0434

RE 2000-0392

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-0392

RE-2000-630

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-630, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug. In a published decision, the court decided that it was an error for the lower court to revoke the appellant's suspended sentence because the original case had been dismissed. The court found that the trial court did not have the authority to accept a plea or impose a sentence in the dismissed case, which meant the lower court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the order revoking the suspended sentence was vacated. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-630

J 2000-690

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2000-690, M.G. appealed his conviction for disturbing a meeting and assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the case to the trial court for a new hearing. One justice dissented. The case began when M.G. was found delinquent after a jury trial held in Grady County. The judge decided that M.G. had committed acts that could be considered disturbing a meeting and assault and battery. After the trial, M.G. appealed the decision, raising multiple arguments as to why the finding should be overturned. One of the main arguments was that M.G.'s mother did not receive proper notice of the trial, which meant the court did not have the right to make a decision about M.G. without her being informed. The court found this point very important. It decided that because the mother wasn’t served with the petition, the trial process was not valid. M.G. also argued that expanding the definition of disturbing a meeting to include disruptions in school classes made the law unclear and too broad. He believed this was unfair. Moreover, he claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support the allegations of assault and battery or disturbing the peace. The State of Oklahoma, the other party in this case, did not respond to M.G.’s arguments during the appeal. Because of the lack of reply from the State, the court decided to review the case based solely on M.G.'s points. After looking at all the information provided, the court stressed the significance of proper notice to the parents in these types of cases. They referred to a previous case to back up their reason for reversing M.G.’s adjudication. In the end, the court instructed that a new hearing must take place where all proper notices are given to the required parties. Ultimately, the court's decision meant that M.G. would have another chance to address the accusations against him in a lawful manner, ensuring that his rights and his family’s rights were properly respected.

Continue ReadingJ 2000-690