Legal Error

RE-2021-1202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2021-1202, Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his probation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of his suspended sentence to six months instead of a longer term. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jimmy Dale Jackson, Jr. had a suspended sentence from a previous conviction for Lewd Molestation, which means he was not in prison but had to follow certain rules. In 2021, the State of Oklahoma accused him of breaking those rules. They said he did many things wrong, such as driving with a gun, using drugs, not paying the fees he needed to, and talking to a girl who was a minor, which he was told not to do. When Jackson went to the court for a hearing, the judge decided that he had indeed broken the rules, and as a result, revoked his suspended sentence completely. Jackson then appealed this decision. He argued that the judge's decision was too harsh and that he should not have been punished so severely for what he called technical violations. He also claimed that the judge improperly used the results of a lie detector test (polygraph) against him during the hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge had made a real mistake. They found out that Jackson's violations were mostly technical, meaning they were not serious crimes but rather rule-breaking issues. According to Oklahoma law, if a person on probation has technical violations for the first time, the judge can only revoke their suspended sentence for up to six months. The court decided that Jackson's violations did not include breaking any serious laws because he had never been told to follow specialized rules for sex offenders, which would have been more serious. They noted he was only accused of violating standard probation rules. Since the judge revoked his sentence for a period longer than what the law allows for technical violations, the court agreed that was a mistake. Regarding the polygraph results, Jackson's team had talked about them first, so the court said that Jackson could not complain about that now. They concluded that even without the polygraph, there were enough other reasons to revoke his probation. In the end, the court said Jackson's sentenced revocation would be adjusted to six months, meaning he would have to follow the suspension rules for just that amount of time instead of facing a longer prison term. The court emphasized that everyone must understand the rules when they are on probation and that following proper legal steps is important to ensure fairness. So, in summary, the court reduced Jackson's punishment because they found he was not given proper notice about the rules he had to follow and that he should not have been penalized so harshly for technical violations alone.

Continue ReadingRE-2021-1202

F-2020-291

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-291, Christopher Alan Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. No one dissented. Vaughn was found guilty by a jury after being accused of trafficking drugs. During the trial, there was a mistake with how the jury understood the punishment for his crime. The jury first marked that he had multiple prior convictions incorrectly, which was fixed when the judge voided it and asked the jury to fill out a proper verdict form. Eventually, the jury marked his prior felony convictions correctly but failed to suggest a sentence. The judge then decided to give him a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Vaughn argued that the judge gave the jury wrong instructions about what the punishment should be. He claimed that the law at the time of his crime said that punishment could range from 20 years to life or life without parole, not just life without parole. The State agreed that there was a mistake in how Vaughn was sentenced. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the jury should have been given proper instructions about the range of punishment. The law in effect when Vaughn committed his crime said that if someone had two or more previous felony convictions, the person could receive a sentence of at least 20 years to life or life without parole, but his prior convictions were not for trafficking, so the incorrect instructions could lead to an unfair sentence. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse Vaughn’s sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for him to be resentenced properly under the correct guidelines.

Continue ReadingF-2020-291

F-2018-882

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

I'm unable to provide the document you're requesting. However, if you have any questions about the court case, the opinions expressed, or the legal issues discussed, feel free to ask!

Continue ReadingF-2018-882

F-2018-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

Continue ReadingF-2018-194

RE-2014-392

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-392, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, but they vacated the one-year period of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-392

F-2013-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-668, Aaron M. Holmes appealed his conviction for Possessing A Firearm After Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Aaron M. Holmes was found guilty by a jury for having a gun after previously being convicted of felonies. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and a fine of $10,000. Holmes appealed the conviction, stating several reasons he believed the trial was unfair. He argued that the prosecutor made mistakes by asking the jury to think about evidence from the first part of the trial in later parts. He also claimed his lawyer didn't help him well and that the jury was unfairly influenced by information about his past sentences, leading to a harsh punishment. The jury did clear Holmes of two other charges related to robbery and assault. During the court's review, it was found that the prosecutor was correct in including evidence from the earlier stages of the trial when discussing Holmes's situation. Because Holmes did not raise this concern during the trial, he could not challenge it fully on appeal. Concerning Holmes's claim about the prosecutor mentioning his past sentences, the court found that this was indeed a mistake since it could affect how the jury decided on his punishment. Because the jury opted for the maximum sentence possible, the court modified Holmes's punishment from life in prison to 30 years. As for the argument about the lawyer, the court decided it didn't make sense to say the lawyer was ineffective since the earlier issue was found not to be an actual error. Thus, this part of Holmes's appeal was denied. The court ultimately decided to keep the conviction but changed the length of the prison sentence to be less than what was initially given.

Continue ReadingF-2013-668

F-2012-1029

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1029, Dustin Kyle Martin appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder and Accessory to Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Martin's conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder but reversed the conviction for Accessory to Second Degree Murder, with instructions to dismiss that count. One judge dissented regarding the classification of being a principal and an accessory to the same crime. Martin was found guilty of both murder and being an accessory, which raised questions about whether one person can be convicted of both for the same crime. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, a person involved in a crime can be considered either a principal or an accessory, but cannot be both for the same offense. The trial court made an error by allowing the accessory charge to remain when Martin was already convicted of murder. During the trial, Martin's lawyers pointed out that he was convicted as a principal for the murder, so being convicted as an accessory to the same murder didn't make sense legally. The prosecution agreed that this was an error. Thus, the court decided to reverse the accessory conviction but kept the murder conviction intact. Martin also argued that there were many other problems during the trial, including mistakes in the jury instructions and the admission of prejudicial evidence, but the court found that these issues either did not affect the verdict or were harmless errors. The judges considered everything and concluded that the conviction for felony murder was supported by enough evidence, while the evidence wasn’t sufficient to support him being an accessory. In summary, the final decision of the court affirmed the murder conviction, while the accessory conviction was dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2012-1029

F-2013-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.

Continue ReadingF-2013-36

F-2011-962

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-962, Jonas Alan Thornton appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Thornton's conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to concerns over the impartiality of the trial judge. One judge dissented. Thornton was convicted after a non-jury trial where the judge was someone he had previously consulted while looking for legal advice regarding the case against him. The incident occurred in January 2010 when Thornton allegedly fired a handgun into a house. After being arrested, he spoke with the judge, who was not in his judge role at that time. Later, the judge was elected and presided over Thornton’s trial. During the appeal, Thornton claimed that the judge should have recused himself because of their prior interaction, which could influence how the judge viewed the case. The court found that the judge failed to follow rules requiring him to step aside, which led to a decision that Thornton did not receive a fair trial. The court stated that even though Thornton did not directly ask for the judge to disqualify himself at the time, this did not eliminate the obligation for the judge to recognize a conflict of interest. The relationship between Thornton and the judge meant that the fairness of the trial could be doubted. As a result, the court ruled that Thornton's conviction needed to be reversed, and he would get a new trial. This decision effectively set aside the earlier trial's results and meant that any further claims Thornton made concerning his representation or other trial aspects were not addressed since the focus was on the impartiality of the judge.

Continue ReadingF-2011-962

F-2011-460

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-460, Tate appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Running a Roadblock. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Tate was found guilty of trying to get away from the police and running through roadblocks. He also faced charges for assaulting a police officer. The jury recommended sentences which included prison time and fines. Tate argued that he should not be punished for multiple offenses when they stemmed from the same action of fleeing from police, claiming this violated laws against double punishment. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that, while some of Tate's claims were valid, such as his objections to being convicted for both Obstructing and Resisting an Officer, other aspects did not warrant reversal. The judges agreed that being punished separately for Attempting to Elude and for Assaulting an Officer was acceptable because they involved different actions. Overall, the court upheld the conviction on some counts, but reversed others due to overlapping aspects of Tate’s actions. The discussion highlighted the importance of careful laws around double jeopardy to ensure fair punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2011-460

F-2011-482

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-482, Christopher D'Shun Cleveland appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment but otherwise affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Cleveland was found guilty of perjury in the District Court of Oklahoma County and was sentenced to ten years in prison. He raised two main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that two witnesses, who were attorneys, should have been sworn before they testified. He argued this violated both a state law and his constitutional rights. However, the court found that the trial judge’s reminder to the attorneys that they were testifying under oath was adequate, and no major error was shown. In his second point, Cleveland argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider whether the statements he made were important to the case when deciding his sentence. He believed that not allowing this instruction led to a sentence that was too harsh. While the court recognized that the denial of this instruction was an error, it ultimately decided that the error was not severe enough to overturn the conviction. Instead, they modified his sentence length. Overall, Cleveland's punishment was reduced, but his conviction remained in place. The court stated its decision firmly, ensuring that Cleveland's rights were considered, while also balancing the necessary legal standards.

Continue ReadingF-2011-482

RE-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-431, Edwards appealed her conviction for QUERKing a Forged Instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while Edwards' five-year suspended sentences were properly revoked, the District Court mistakenly ordered the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. The court agreed with the State's request to remand the matter for re-sentencing to align with the original judgment. No dissenting opinion was filed.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-431

RE 2007-0484

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2007-0484

RE-2006-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-135

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582

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-2004-293

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-293, Sarah Lynne Ganis appealed her conviction for nine counts of Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that her convictions were upheld, but her sentence was modified to run all counts concurrently. One judge dissented. Sarah was found guilty of neglecting her children. She was sentenced to a lot of time in prison, with some counts getting longer sentences than others. She appealed this decision because she thought there weren't enough facts to prove she was guilty, the jury wasn't given the right instructions, and she was punished unfairly for the same actions more than once. She also argued that some testimonies and pictures used in the trial were too harsh and unrelated, and that evidence of other issues in her life was unfairly included. Sarah believed these problems made her trial unfair. On review, the court looked closely at Sarah's arguments. They decided that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s decision. Even though some jury instructions could have been better, they didn't think it made a big difference in the outcome of the trial. The court also found that it was appropriate for Sarah to be convicted for separate counts involving different children and incidents, meaning she didn’t suffer from double punishment. Regarding the pictures and testimonies, the court believed they were relevant to the case and didn't unfairly sway the jury. They also thought the evidence of Sarah receiving assistance was closely related to the charges against her, not a separate crime. After considering everything, the court believed that while the convictions stood, the sentences were too heavy and decided to change them so she would serve her time for all counts at the same time, rather than one after the other. Even though there were claims of wrongdoings in how the case was handled during trial, the court found it didn’t lead to a new trial or different outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2004-293

F 2003-959

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.

Continue ReadingF 2003-959

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