In OCCA case No. F 2002-1259, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree, robbery with imitation firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented, stating that eleven life sentences shocked the court's conscience but eight did not.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1041, Carlos Gomez Modesto appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine and Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming Count 2. One judge dissented. The case started when Modesto was found guilty in an earlier trial of trafficking both methamphetamine and cocaine. The jury decided his punishment for methamphetamine should be ten years and a fine of $50,000, and for cocaine, ten years and a fine of $25,000. However, during sentencing, the judge changed the punishment for methamphetamine to just four years, allowing both counts to run at the same time. Modesto raised several issues during his appeal, challenging the fairness of the trial. He claimed that: 1. The trial court didn't properly handle his request to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which is when a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. 2. He argued that having two convictions seemed unfair, like getting punished twice for the same wrongdoing. 3. He believed that the evidence presented was not enough to support his convictions. 4. Modesto complained about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, suggesting they were harmful and unfair. 5. He pointed out that some decisions made by the trial court regarding evidence were wrong, which affected his right to a fair trial. After looking carefully at all the facts and arguments, the court agreed with Modesto on some points. They found that his two convictions did violate the rule against double punishment, so they decided to reverse the conviction for methamphetamine and instruct the lower court to dismiss that charge. However, they determined there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction for cocaine and decided to affirm that part. The court also recognized that the prosecutor's comparison of Modesto to a notorious criminal was inappropriate, but they concluded it wasn’t enough to change the trial's outcome. Lastly, although there were some mistakes in handling evidence, they decided those were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial. In summary, the court's final ruling was that Modesto's conviction for trafficking cocaine would stand, while the conviction for methamphetamine was reversed and dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-323, David Dean Wichita appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. The case focused on whether Wichita had properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence in the record to show that he understood and agreed to give up this important right. The State agreed that this was a mistake and that the case needed to be looked at again. The judges explained that a person must clearly show they are giving up their right to a jury trial. There was no proof in the record that Wichita made this choice himself or that he did it knowingly and wisely. Because of this error, the judges decided that Wichita should have a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-157, Kenneth Lee Dueitt appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Precursor Substance (Red Phosphorus), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Manufacturing Methamphetamine, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia while reversing the conviction for Possession of a Precursor Substance and remanding it for a new trial. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the reversal of Count 2.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-708, Gary Don Caudill appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. The original jury had recommended an 18-year sentence, but the district court imposed a 35-year sentence and a $2000 fine instead. Caudill argued that this was not fair because the court should not have given him a longer sentence than what the jury recommended. The court agreed with this claim, stating that the state had made a mistake because of a prior legal opinion that was later changed. As a result, Caudill's sentence was modified back to 18 years in prison with the same fine. The decision of the district court was affirmed, but his sentence was changed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-101, Danny Joe Boomershine appealed his conviction for Forcible Sodomy and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should be modified to life.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-529, Cesar Diaz, also known as Jorge Limon, appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana) and drug trafficking (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm two of his convictions but reversed nine other counts related to using a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a felony. One judge dissented. Cesar Diaz was found guilty after a jury trial that took place in March 2001. The jury sentenced him to serve thirteen years for conspiracy to traffic marijuana, fifteen years for drug trafficking, and shorter sentences for the other counts along with fines. Diaz raised several points for appeal. He challenged the validity of his confession, claimed that he was denied a fair trial because an attorney from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics acted as a special prosecutor, argued that multiple convictions for the same crimes violated double jeopardy protections, contended that evidence obtained through a wiretap was not authorized, maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the charges happened in the right location, and argued that money seized from his car should not have been used against him due to an illegal stop. The court carefully reviewed all the claims and found that sufficient evidence supported the confession being voluntary. It determined that the attorney from the Bureau of Narcotics was allowed to assist in the trial, which did not violate any rules. The court also concluded that having convictions for both conspiracy and trafficking did not violate the double jeopardy rule. However, the court agreed with Diaz’s argument on the venue issue concerning the communication facility charges. It stated that the prosecution needed to prove that the phone calls were made or received in Oklahoma County, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the counts related to using a communication facility were reversed and dismissed. In summary, the court upheld two of Diaz's convictions but ruled that the other nine were not valid due to a lack of proof regarding venue.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-785, Sammy Dewain Haas appealed his conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sammy Dewain Haas faced serious charges for driving while drunk and for driving when his license was suspended. He went to trial in Beckham County, where a jury found him guilty. The punishment was set at ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the drunk driving charge, and one year and a $500 fine for the driving under suspension charge. The sentences were to be served at the same time. Haas raised several issues on appeal. First, he pointed out that the prosecutor wrongly argued that the jury should think about what he might do in the future instead of what he did this time. The court did not think this was a serious mistake that required a new trial. Second, he claimed that the jury should have been told about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired, but the court found that the evidence did not support that. Haas also said the judge should have given instructions about using circumstantial evidence, which is when a conclusion is drawn based on the surrounding facts instead of direct evidence. While the court agreed that the instructions should have been given, they ruled that this mistake didn't affect the overall outcome of the trial. Finally, the court ordered that the official record be changed to correctly state that Haas's sentences were to run together, not one after the other. In the end, the court upheld the trial’s decision, meaning Haas would remain convicted and serve his sentence as planned.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-283, Timothy Dewayne Kliven appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Kliven's conviction with instructions to dismiss. Kliven's co-appellant, Tony Wayne Jones, also had his conviction reversed. One justice dissented. The case involved both men being found guilty of planning to make methamphetamine, but the evidence against them was not strong enough to show that they had agreed to do this crime. The evidence was mainly based on circumstantial facts, which means it didn't directly show their involvement in a conspiracy. Since there wasn't enough proof, the court ruled that their convictions should not stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-10, Todd O'Shay Coburn appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified the sentences to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1163, Byrin Carr appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Carr's convictions. One judge dissented. Byrin Carr was found guilty by a jury of two counts related to selling cocaine near a school and public housing. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for each count, plus fines. However, Carr argued that the court made mistakes during his trial. One of the key points was that Carr wanted the jury to hear about entrapment. This means he believed he was tricked into committing the crime by police. The court agreed that this important point should have been shared with the jury. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carr's convictions. Now, instead of being convicted of delivery, Carr was found guilty of possessing cocaine near a school and just possession of cocaine in general. His new sentence was reduced to five years for each conviction, to be served one after the other. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge dissented. This dissenting judge believed that instead of changing the convictions, the case should be sent back for a new trial to address the mistakes made. Overall, the case highlighted the importance of fair instructions to the jury and how mistakes in court can lead to changes in sentences or corrections in charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-880, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the appellant's sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the error did not amount to plain error and that he would not modify the sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1427, John Vernon Dubiel appealed his conviction for possession of forged evidences of debt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm one count of the conviction but vacated two counts. One judge dissented on the issue of sentencing. Dubiel was charged with three counts of possessing forged checks. At trial, the jury found him guilty of all counts and recommended a long sentence for each, which the judge imposed to run one after the other. After Dubiel appealed, he argued that he was unfairly punished twice for the same crime and that the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed with Dubiel on the double jeopardy argument, stating that the law allows for only one punishment for having several forged checks at the same time. Because of this, they decided to cancel two of the counts against him but upheld the conviction for the first count. The court also found that any references to Dubiel's personal drug use during the trial were not significant enough to impact the fairness of the trial. Lastly, since they reduced his conviction, they did not need to further discuss the claim about excessive sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-771, Jeffrey Allen Brown appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape from the Department of Corrections. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Brown was tried in the District Court of Comanche County and found guilty of Attempted Escape, which is against the law. His punishment was a twenty-year prison sentence, the minimum allowed. Brown did not agree with his conviction and appealed it. Brown had three main reasons for his appeal. First, he believed that he did not get a fair trial because a witness for the state shared something that Brown had not been told about before his trial. This made him feel like he was surprised or ambushed during the trial. Second, Brown thought that the evidence presented against him was not strong enough to prove he tried to escape. Third, he argued that the judge was unfair by giving him a longer sentence because he chose to have a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. After looking closely at the evidence and listening to all arguments, the court found that although the state did not share everything with Brown's lawyer in time, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The judges said that even with the surprise testimony, there was enough evidence to show that Brown attempted to escape. Regarding the sentencing, the judges agreed that the trial judge had made a mistake by giving Brown a harsher sentence just because he decided to have a jury trial. However, since Brown had a serious criminal history with six previous felony convictions, the judges felt the mistake did not require a new sentencing. In conclusion, the judges decided that Brown's conviction and sentence would remain as they were.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-451, Christopher B. Andrews appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Andrews' conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One justice dissented. Andrews was found guilty of robbing someone and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. After the jury finished their discussions about the case but before they made their final decision, the judge let the jury go home for the night. This happened even though both Andrews' defense team and the state's lawyers did not want this to happen. According to the law, after the jury starts talking about the case, they should stay together and not be allowed to go home or talk to others about the case. If they are allowed to separate, it can hurt the fairness of the trial, and courts believe that this is automatically a problem for the defendant. The court carefully examined the situation in Andrews' case and found that since the jury was allowed to leave, they could have been influenced by others, which is not fair. The state did not show enough evidence that the jury would not be prejudiced by being separated. As a result, the court reversed the original decision, meaning that Andrews' conviction was not valid, and the case was sent back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-692, Donald Gean Miller appealed his conviction for escape from the county jail and injury to a public building. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for escape but modified the sentence for injury to a public building to run concurrently with the escape sentence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for the escape conviction be reduced from 200 years to 45 years and believed that the injury to a public building conviction violated legal statutes.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-292, Joe Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence for the weapon charge. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a felony. At his trial, he was sentenced to 30 years for the drug charge and 20 years for the weapon charge. He raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that the court did not correctly explain the state’s need to prove his past convictions. Second, he claimed the jury was misinformed about the punishment ranges for the second charge. Third, he said the jury was not correctly told about the punishments for the drug offense. The court looked carefully at all the evidence and arguments presented. They decided that the way the jury was instructed about the drug charges was correct. However, they agreed that the sentence for the weapon charge should be less severe based on their interpretations of the law, setting it to the minimum of two years instead of the original twenty. One judge disagreed with the decision to lessen the sentence for the weapon charge, feeling that the jury’s sentence should be upheld. The final conclusion was that while the main conviction was upheld, the penalty for possession of a weapon was reduced.