In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-10, a person appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the length of the revoked suspended sentence should be shortened. One member of the court disagreed with this decision. The case began when the person was charged and sentenced as a Youthful Offender for lewd molestation. He was given eight years, but on December 22, 2008, he had part of that sentence suspended after spending some time in juvenile custody. Later, he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation, which included failing to register as a sex offender and not completing required treatment. During a hearing, the judge decided that the individual had violated his probation and revoked five years of his suspended sentence. However, upon appeal, the court found that he should actually receive credit for the time he was under juvenile supervision. Given this credit from December 1, 2005, to December 22, 2008, the court modified the revocation to just over four years instead of five. The district court was instructed to update the sentence accordingly.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-210, Eric Anthony Damon appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a new hearing, allowing Damon to appoint new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Eric Anthony Damon faced serious charges, and he decided to enter a guilty plea without fully understanding all the details. After entering the plea, he felt that his defense lawyer did not help him properly, especially during the trial. He thought this was unfair and wrote to ask the court if he could change his plea. The court discussed whether Damon should get a new lawyer to help him withdraw his guilty plea. When someone says their lawyer didn’t help them well, the law usually says they should have a different lawyer to make sure everything is alright. The court realized that it can be really tricky when the same lawyer is trying to help with the plea withdrawal while being accused of not doing a good job. Damon had reasons to believe his plea wasn’t fair. During the trial, he had trouble with getting some witnesses to show up. He felt forced to plead guilty since his lawyer could not call certain key witnesses who might have helped him. The court didn’t want to decide if his plea was valid right away. Instead, they thought it would be best to let Damon have a new lawyer represent him in this important matter. In summary, the court agreed with Damon and said he should have a chance to explain his situation better with new legal support. They ordered this to be done and made sure Damon had the right to defend himself with a lawyer who could deal with his concerns about his earlier representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-542, Gatewood appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Using a Telephone to Cause the Commission of the Crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Gatewood's petition for writ of certiorari, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Roscoe Curtis Gatewood, Jr. was in trouble because he was accused of selling drugs and using a phone to help with that crime. He decided to plead guilty to these charges with the advice of his lawyer. The judge gave him a long sentence. Gatewood later wanted to change his plea because he felt his lawyer had a conflict of interest. The conflict happened because both Gatewood and his girlfriend, who was also accused, were represented by lawyers from the same law firm. Gatewood's girlfriend decided to testify against him in exchange for a lighter sentence. This meant Gatewood's lawyer could not defend him as well because he was also looking out for the girlfriend's best interests. The court agreed that this was a serious problem, which unfairly affected Gatewood's case. As a result, the court allowed Gatewood to take back his guilty pleas, meaning he could go to trial instead. The decision to reverse the previous ruling was made so Gatewood could have a fair chance to defend himself. In summary, the court found that Gatewood's rights were harmed because of his lawyer's conflicting duties, and they reversed his conviction so he could have another chance in court.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-69, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Resisting an Officer, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-620, Vincent Vasquez appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution. No one dissented. Vasquez was found guilty by a jury on three counts related to sexual abuse of a child. He received eight years in prison for each count, which would be served one after another. However, part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve the full time for all counts right away. Vasquez argued that there were several mistakes made during his trial. First, he claimed that the evidence wasn't strong enough to support his convictions, saying the victim's testimony was inconsistent. The court said that the ruling was valid because the victim's main story was consistent and believable, even if she forgot some minor details. Second, Vasquez believed that important evidence was not allowed in court, which he thought would help prove his side of the story. However, the court decided that the evidence offered was not relevant to the case. Third, he argued that the jury was not properly instructed regarding how to look at the evidence. The court concluded that the instructions given were sufficient and did not harm his case. Fourth, Vasquez objected to an order to pay restitution, which the State admitted was incorrectly imposed. The court agreed to remove that requirement. Lastly, Vasquez suggested that the combination of all these errors should lead to his conviction being overturned. The court found that there were no cumulative errors that warranted relief. In conclusion, the court maintained Vasquez’s convictions but removed the restitution order.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-599, Betty Sue Black appealed her conviction for obtaining cash by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Betty Sue Black was sentenced to ten years in prison for her crime, but she only had to serve one year in jail if she followed the rules of her probation. She was also required to pay a fine and make restitution, which means she had to pay back money she owed. After being released from jail, her first payment was due in January 2008. However, in January, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke her probation, claiming she had failed to make her restitution payment. A hearing was held, where it was found that she was unable to pay because of her financial situation. She had disabilities that affected her ability to get a job, and she lived with her sick daughter. There was no proof that she could pay the $200 she owed at that time. The court found that the only issue was her failure to pay the restitution, and they agreed that this was not a good reason for revoking her probation since she couldn't pay. They ruled that it was not fair to revoke her for something she could not control. The appellate court decided to reverse the revocation order and directed that the motion to revoke her probation be dismissed because they felt that the trial court had made a mistake in the decision. The dissenting judge believed that the trial court had not made an error and felt that the judge should be trusted to make these decisions based on what he heard and saw during the hearings.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-963, Richard Lloyd VanMeter appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor-Second Offense and multiple new charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the DUI/Drug Court Program and vacate his convictions, instructing to reinstate him in the program based on the conditions of his plea agreement. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2008-287, Matthew Thornbrough appealed his conviction for several counts, including possession of a firearm and operating a police radio. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for operating a police radio and ordered it to be dismissed, while affirming his convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-1009, Richardson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Richardson was entitled to a hearing on his Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-761, Robert Lee Smallen appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's suppression order of his statements made during a police interview. Smallen's refusal to waive his rights to silence and counsel was upheld, and he was found not to have voluntarily waived those rights. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1253, L. V. Drennon, III, appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) within 2000 feet of a school and conspiracy to commit a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Drennon was found guilty of having marijuana and methamphetamine with the intention to distribute, as well as taking part in a conspiracy to distribute these drugs. He was sentenced to 40 years for each of these charges, which would be served at the same time. Drennon argued that he did not receive good help from his lawyer and that his punishment was too harsh. The court looked carefully at Drennon's claims and the evidence surrounding the case, including courtroom records and transcripts. They found that Drennon's lawyer had provided him with reasonable help. Regarding the punishment, the court discovered that the jury had been given wrong information about the length of the possible sentences for the crimes. They had been wrongly told that Drennon faced a longer-term sentence than what was actually correct. The correct rules allow for a shorter minimum sentence of 6 years for possession with intent to distribute and a minimum of 4 years for conspiracy after previous felony convictions. Because of this mistake, the court decided that the jury's punishment was too extreme. As a result, they changed Drennon's sentences to 20 years for each charge, to be served at the same time. In summary, the court agreed with the conviction but changed the length of Drennon’s sentence due to the mistakes made about punishment options.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1095, Terry Dewayne Wakefield appealed his conviction for kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and assault and battery - domestic abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Wakefield's convictions for kidnapping and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. However, the sentence for assault and battery - domestic abuse was modified from ten years to one year in the county jail. One dissenting opinion was noted.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.