In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1278, James Lorenzo Devers appealed his conviction for Inducing a Minor to Engage in Prostitution and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions with some modifications. One judge dissented. Devers was tried in Tulsa County and found guilty of multiple charges involving sexual misconduct with teenage boys. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines after considering testimonies from three victims who claimed Devers offered them money to perform sexual acts. Despite some conflicting details regarding the timing of his proposal, the evidence against Devers was strong, including his own confession about some of the offenses. The appeal included several arguments. One claim was about the trial court's decision not to separate the charges for trial. The court maintained that the offenses were connected and reflected a consistent pattern of behavior, justifying their joint consideration. The court found no prejudice in trying the counts together. Devers also argued the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the punishment for his indecent proposal charge. However, the court noted that the error did not change the outcome since he would have received the same sentence even under the correct guideline. Another point of appeal was regarding whether the jury was informed about parole eligibility. The court ruled the instructions were appropriate since the charges in question did not include those that required serving a certain percentage of the sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged that there was a mixing of punishment provisions in the instructions but decided any fines would be adjusted because of that error. Ultimately, after reviewing all claims, the court upheld the convictions but modified the fine amount for Devers' offenses. The judgment was affirmed with modifications, while one judge expressed disagreement with some aspects of the decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-933, the appellant appealed his conviction for abandonment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant was found guilty of abandoning his child by not paying court-ordered child support. He owed nearly $10,000 in unpaid support for his ten-year-old daughter. After initially being sentenced to five years in prison, his sentence was later changed to a suspended sentence of about four years and eight months. This meant he would not go to prison immediately and could work on paying the support he owed. The appellant was required to get a job, do community service, and make monthly payments towards his child support. However, he fell behind on these payments, and the court eventually issued a warrant for his arrest because of this failure to pay. Over the next couple of years, the court continued to postpone his sentencing. The appellant managed to pay some of his arrears, but he still owed money. By 2003, the court revoked his suspended sentence, saying he had not met the payment requirements. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the appellant's suspended sentence actually ended before the revocation took place. The court explained that even though he had missed a payment, the revocation occurred after his sentence had technically expired, which was different from the usual rules. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the revocation and said the case must be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-899, Edward John VanWoundenberg appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence (DUI) after having two or more previous convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. VanWoundenberg was found guilty of DUI in a trial where a jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued there were mistakes in the jury instructions, his sentence should be changed, a clerical error needed to be fixed, and that the combined effect of all the mistakes denied him a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information from the trial. It decided that VanWoundenberg’s case did not need to be reversed or changed, but there was a clerical mistake in the court documents that had to be corrected. The court found that the evidence did not support giving the jury instructions about lesser charges, and so the trial court acted correctly by not providing those instructions. VanWoundenberg also argued that his felony DUI sentence should not have been increased under a general law since it had already been raised under a specific DUI law due to his previous offenses. The court explained that it was legal to enhance (or increase) his sentence using a general law because he had many previous different felony convictions within the required time. The court pointed out that one of VanWoundenberg's arguments was mistaken; the rules allowed for both the specific and general laws to apply in his case. Finally, the court amended the total costs listed in the original court documents to a lesser amount due to a fee that should not have been included. In the end, the court confirmed VanWoundenberg's conviction and corrected the clerical error, but found no other issues that needed to change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-484, Kevin Eddy Bumgarner appealed his conviction for First-Degree Arson and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided Bumgarner’s sentence was excessive and modified it from 275 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the original sentence reflected the jury's view of Bumgarner's actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-341, Terrell Dwayne Gurley appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, burglary, larceny of an automobile, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, forcible entry, and attempting to intimidate a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Gurley's conviction for one of the charges, burglary in the first degree, and ordered that this count be dismissed. The court upheld the remaining convictions and found Gurley's sentences were not excessive. One judge dissented, arguing that the laws applied in the case should be reconsidered regarding the relationship between the crimes committed.
In OCCA case No. M-2000-115, the person appealed his conviction for assault and battery, assault upon a peace officer, and malicious injury to property, along with two counts of domestic abuse - assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions except for one count of domestic abuse, which was reversed with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case took place in the District Court of Seminole County, where the appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial. He was sentenced to time in jail and fines for his crimes, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. During the appeal, the appellant raised two main arguments. First, he claimed that two counts of assault and battery were unfair because they stemmed from the same incident. Second, he argued there was not enough evidence to prove he intended to assault a police officer. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that the two counts of domestic abuse arose from one incident and that the state had not properly informed the appellant about these charges, so the conviction for that count was reversed. However, the court found there was enough evidence to support the other convictions. In summary, except for one count of domestic abuse that was reversed, the court upheld the other convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.