Legislative Authority Archives

S-2012-719

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:October 31, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

F-2007-58

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:January 1, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-58, Fredrick Demon Cleveland appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of cocaine and possession of drug proceeds but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the marijuana conviction. Cleveland was found guilty of three charges: possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing drug proceeds, and possessing marijuana. The court sentenced him to various terms in prison, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. Cleveland raised several points in his appeal. He argued that convicting him for both cocaine and marijuana possession violated his rights because the drugs were found together. The court found that although he possessed both drugs, it counted as a single act of possession under the law. Thus, they reversed the marijuana conviction. Regarding another point, Cleveland claimed that a witness gave inappropriate testimony that swayed the jury. The court acknowledged this concern but determined the error was not big enough to change the overall outcome of the case. They emphasized that other evidence supported the convictions for cocaine possession and drug proceeds. In summary, the court affirmed the convictions for cocaine and the related crimes but dismissed the marijuana charges, reflecting that the possession of different drugs at the same time can lead to different legal interpretations based on state law. One judge, however, believed that the marijuana conviction should have been upheld, arguing the legislature intended for both offenses to be prosecuted even when the drugs were found together.

F-2006-113

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:March 28, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.