Jury Instructions

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737

F-2004-1096

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1096, Deon Lamar Nelson appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery Upon An Officer of State Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Nelson's convictions but modified the sentence for Count I to three years of imprisonment. One judge dissented in part. Nelson was found guilty by a jury for hitting two court officers. He received a longer sentence for the first charge, where he hit one officer, due to the injuries caused. The main arguments he made in his appeal included issues with how the cases were joined together, whether a defense attorney counts as an officer of the court, the admission of certain evidence that he claimed was unfair, and concerns about his competency during the trial. The court held that it was fine to join the two cases together, and they ruled that a defense attorney is indeed considered an officer of the court. Regarding the evidence about the injuries from the assault, the court mentioned that some of it shouldn't have been included since it might have affected the fairness of his sentencing. Although they found error in admitting this evidence, they still believed the overall verdicts and the remaining parts of the trial were fair. Ultimately, the court decided that Nelson's sentence for the first count of assault was too severe due to the improper evidence, and they modified it to three years, while they affirmed the conviction and sentence for the second count. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed with reducing the sentence, stating the injuries were relevant for determining the punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1096

F-2005-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1176

F 2005-522

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.

Continue ReadingF 2005-522

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F-2004-682

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-682

F-2005-422

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-422, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences for certain counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Jerry Lee Mays, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to several years in prison, varying by count. Appellant believed that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support his conviction for shooting with intent to kill. He argued that there was no proof of his intent to kill a specific person when he fired his weapon. Mays also claimed that his convictions violated double jeopardy laws, which protect individuals from being tried for the same crime multiple times. He argued that he should not be punished for both possession of a firearm and shooting with intent to kill since they were related offenses. Additionally, he felt that his punishment for possession of a firearm was excessive, that the jury should not have considered assault and battery as a lesser offense, and that the jury did not receive adequate instructions about his right to a fair trial. The court carefully reviewed Mays's arguments and considered all the evidence from the trial. They found that the jury had enough evidence to convict him of shooting with intent to kill. Even though Mays focused on the victim’s perception of his actions, the law does not depend solely on that view but considers all evidence as part of understanding a defendant's intent. The court also concluded that Mays's double jeopardy claim did not hold since he committed two separate offenses at different times. The first offense was possessing the firearm, and the second offense was shooting at people, which were considered distinct. In terms of sentencing, the court recognized that Mays's conviction for possession relied on prior felony convictions, which were also used in different charges. However, they concluded this did not unfairly impact his sentence. Important to note was that the trial court had made an error in telling the jury that Mays's conviction for assault and battery could be enhanced due to previous felonies, which was incorrect for a misdemeanor charge. The judges found that this error did not change the overall outcome significantly, so it was ruled as harmless. They did acknowledge a need to change the length of Mays's sentence for shooting with intent to kill from forty years to thirty years for each of those counts due to one of Mays's points about jury instructions that were missed. Ultimately, the court affirmed most of Mays's convictions and modified some sentences. Despite some errors, the judges felt that Mays received a fair trial overall, and the necessary adjustments to his sentences did not warrant a full new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-422

F-2004-1080

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1080

F-2004-332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.

Continue ReadingF-2004-332

F-2004-368

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-368, an individual appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes against his daughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Second Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, but reversed the conviction for Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented on the Forcible Sodomy count. Tommie Loyd Payne was charged with numerous sexual offenses in Muskogee County, with the jury acquitting him of 97 counts but convicting him on 4. The court sentenced him to a total of 70 years in prison, with some sentences to be served one after the other. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that the conviction for Forcible Sodomy violated double jeopardy because the jury instructions blended different elements of the crimes, which could have led to a wrongful conviction based on the same actions. However, the court found that the jury's understanding of the separate charges made this error negligible, so the convictions stood. He also contended that Lewd Molestation should not be punished because it was a lesser included offense of Rape by Instrumentation. The court agreed that both charges referred to the same act, which violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, resulting in the reversal of the conviction for Lewd Molestation. Finally, Payne pointed out that the trial court did not complete a pre-sentence investigation before sentencing, which was a mandatory requirement. However, the lack of this investigation was found to be a harmless error. Overall, the court upheld the serious convictions against Payne while addressing significant legal standards regarding double jeopardy and trial procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2004-368

F-2003-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.

Continue ReadingF-2003-991

F-2002-1351

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1351

F-2003-505

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-505

F-2002-537

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.

Continue ReadingF-2002-537

F-2002-613

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.

Continue ReadingF-2002-613

F 2002-1116

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1116

F 2000-321

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.

Continue ReadingF 2000-321

F-2002-24

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-24, Tomas Mendiola Bernal appealed his conviction for maintaining a place for keeping or selling drugs and three counts of delivering and distributing cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for maintaining a place for selling drugs and ordered a new trial for that charge, but affirmed the convictions and sentences for delivering and distributing cocaine. One member of the court disagreed with some parts of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2002-24

F-2001-1243

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1243, Michael Gerald Turner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some of Turner's convictions and dismiss others. Specifically, the court upheld his convictions for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Driving While Impaired, and Attempted Escape, but reversed and dismissed his convictions for Personal Injury DUI and DUI due to issues with evidence and double jeopardy. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1243

F 2001-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-668

F-2001-444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-444, Eric Anthony Rivera appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Kidnapping conviction and instructed to dismiss it, while affirming the conviction for Domestic Abuse. One judge dissented. Eric was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious charges: Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. The jury gave him a ten-year prison sentence for Kidnapping and a one-year jail sentence for Domestic Abuse, which will be served at the same time. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support that Eric truly intended to kidnap the victim secretly. Because of this, the court said that the conviction for Kidnapping should be reversed, meaning they didn't agree with that part of the trial's decision. They felt Eric didn’t get a fair chance regarding that charge because the evidence didn’t meet the legal requirements. However, they found that the case against him for Domestic Abuse still stood strong and was supported by sufficient evidence, so they kept that conviction in place. The judges on the appeal discussed their different opinions about the case, with one agreeing with the majority, while others felt that the Kidnapping conviction should have stayed based on the evidence presented. In the end, the court's decision meant Eric would no longer be punished for Kidnapping but would still serve his sentence for Domestic Abuse.

Continue ReadingF-2001-444

F-2001-278

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-278, Kirk appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse, and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided that the convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon were affirmed, while the conviction for Domestic Abuse After Former Conviction of Domestic Abuse was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Kirk was found guilty after an incident on January 24, 2000, where he lived with Reva Gail Sweetin. That night, Kirk's friend, Billy Whiting, visited them. After drinking alcohol, Whiting became very drunk and fell off the couch multiple times. Sweetin tried to help him, but Kirk later emerged with a knife and attacked both Sweetin and Whiting, ultimately fatally stabbing Whiting. Kirk raised several arguments during his appeal. First, he claimed the evidence was not enough to support his convictions, arguing that the witnesses who testified against him were not credible. However, the court found that the evidence supported the jury's decision. Second, Kirk argued that being convicted of both Domestic Abuse and Assault and Battery was unfair because both were for the same action. The court agreed with this point and decided to dismiss the Domestic Abuse conviction. Kirk also claimed that the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for Sweetin's credibility during closing arguments. The court concluded that these comments did not indicate the prosecutor's personal opinion but were a response to the defense's arguments. Another concern raised by Kirk was about other crimes evidence that the prosecutor brought up regarding his ex-wife, but the court determined that the jury was properly instructed to disregard it. Kirk argued that he should have received instructions about the witness's past bad acts. While the court agreed this was a mistake, they believed it did not significantly affect the trial's outcome due to the strong evidence against him. Lastly, Kirk claimed the overall errors during the trial were enough to warrant a new trial. However, since the court had already determined that one of his convictions should be reversed, they found there were no additional grounds for relief. In summary, the court upheld the murder and assault convictions, dismissed the domestic abuse charge, ensuring a focus on the primary acts Kirk committed during the incident.

Continue ReadingF-2001-278

F-2001-313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-01-313, *Steven Wayne Robertson* appealed his conviction for *Attempted Burglary in the First Degree* and *Assault with a Dangerous Weapon*. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Robertson was found guilty by a jury for two crimes. He was accused of trying to break into a house (attempted burglary) and attacking someone with a weapon (assault). The jury decided to give him a ten-year prison sentence for each crime, which would usually mean he would spend twenty years in prison, but the court later decided he would serve both sentences at the same time, totaling ten years. Robertson claimed that it was unfair to punish him twice for what he said was one event. However, the court concluded that the two charges were based on different actions and that he could be punished for both. They looked at the evidence, like a witness who saw him with an axe, showing he was dangerous. He also said he should have had the chance to argue that he only caused damage to property instead of trying to break in, but the court found that this was not needed based on the facts of the case. Finally, Robertson thought he did not get a fair trial because of some things the prosecutor said during the trial. The court agreed that there were improper comments but still decided to keep the guilty verdicts and just change the sentences so that he would serve ten years instead of twenty.

Continue ReadingF-2001-313

F-2000-1634

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1634, Edgar Lee Rucker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Rucker was found guilty by a jury for selling methamphetamine and was sentenced to twelve years in prison along with a $10,000 fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to marijuana possession. Rucker argued several points in his appeal, claiming violations of his rights during the trial. The first point raised was that it was wrong for both the drug offense and habitual offender statutes to be used in his sentencing. The court acknowledged this as an error but stated that it only affected the fine; they reduced the fine to $2,500 since it was incorrectly calculated originally. Rucker also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a habitual offender. However, the court found that the State provided enough evidence regarding his past convictions. He claimed that evidence about his previous bad behavior should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court determined it was relevant for understanding the case. Rucker believed that there was a mismatch between the charges and the evidence, but the court concluded the evidence was consistent with the allegations. Another argument was that his lawyer didn’t do a good job representing him. They noted that while the lawyer should have objected more, it didn’t significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Rucker contended that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, but the court found that any mistakes made were corrected and did not deny him a fair trial. Finally, Rucker argued that all the errors combined made the trial unfair, but the court decided that the only significant error was the fine and adjusted it accordingly. In summary, the court upheld Rucker’s prison sentence but modified the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1634

F-2001-319

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-319