Legislative Intent Archives

RE-2021-1202

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2022
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.

F-2021-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-49, the Appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate intentional discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and feloniously pointing a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a firearm and for pointing a firearm but reversed and remanded the conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the interpretation of the statutes involved.

F-2019-82

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

F-2017-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-963, Randall Duane Throneberry appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Randall Duane Throneberry was tried and found guilty in an Oklahoma court for lewd acts with an child under the age of 16. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to life in prison without any chance for parole because he had a prior conviction for a similar crime. The case began when a young girl named R.F. reported that Throneberry had molested her while she was sleeping on a couch. The events happened in August 2015 when R.F. and her mother were staying at a family friend's house, where Throneberry was also visiting. One night, while R.F. was sleeping, Throneberry was found standing too close to her and had his hand under her blanket. The next morning, R.F. woke up to find Throneberry touching her inappropriately. During the trial, Thorneberry argued that some testimonies regarding R.F.'s behavior after the incident should not have been allowed, claiming that it unfairly impacted the jury. However, the court ruled that this evidence was relevant to show the credibility of R.F.'s testimony. Throneberry also challenged the admission of testimony from another victim, D.W., who had been molested by him when she was seven years old. The court allowed this testimony as it demonstrated Throneberry's pattern of behavior. Despite Throneberry's claims, the court found that the testimony was relevant and important for the case. Throneberry's argument that his life sentence without parole was unconstitutional was also denied. The court stated that the sentence was not excessively harsh compared to the serious nature of the crime and Throneberry's history of similar offenses. The judge noted that sentencing is ultimately a matter for the legislature, and in these kinds of cases, severe punishments are justified. In summary, the court upheld Throneberry's conviction and life sentence, finding no errors in the trial or the evidence presented. The judgment was affirmed, with one judge expressing a different opinion.

F 2017-1055

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, William Singleton Wall, III, appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. William was charged in 2014 and entered a plea for the Drug Court program, where if he succeeded, his case would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he faced a ten-year prison sentence. In April 2017, the State filed to terminate him from the program because he tested positive for THC, which is a substance found in marijuana. During the termination hearing, the judge decided that the State had enough evidence to terminate William from the program. He was given a ten-year prison sentence with credit for time already served. William argued that he should not have been terminated because he did not receive proper notice of the program's rules and because the State filed its motion after the allowed time for his participation in the Drug Court expired. The court explained that the decision to terminate a participant from Drug Court is at the judge's discretion. William did not object when the evidence of his drug use was presented at the hearing. Furthermore, the records showed that William had understood the terms of the Drug Court when he entered. The court also found that although the approval for his Drug Court participation had a time limit, he was still under the court's jurisdiction until he was properly sentenced. The court ruled that they did not see any errors in how the trial court acted. They affirmed the decision to terminate William, meaning he would serve his ten-year sentence for not following the rules of the Drug Court program.

J-2018-1066

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2019
Post category:J

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. J-2018-1066** **Decided on: August 8, 2019** **A.O. (Appellant)** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma (Appellee)** **Opinion of the Court by Presiding Judge Lewis:** **Background:** The appellant, A.O., a minor, was charged as a juvenile with Sexual Battery per 21 O.S. Supp. 2017, § 1123(B) in McIntosh County District Court (Case No. JDL-2017-29). Subsequently, on February 26, 2018, an Amended Delinquent Petition was filed, charging him with Child Sexual Abuse under 21 O.S. Supp. 2014, § 843.5(E). Following a non-jury trial held on September 25, 2018, the court adjudicated A.O. as delinquent. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. A.O. contends he was never informed of his right to a jury trial, claiming a violation of due process. 2. He argues that the conduct in question—touching the victim's buttocks over clothing—does not constitute Child Sexual Abuse as intended by the legislature. 3. A.O. claims the prosecutor expressed an opinion on his guilt, violating his due process rights. **Rulings:** 1. **Proposition I**: The court found no merit in A.O.'s claim regarding his jury trial rights. The record demonstrated that both A.O. and his guardian were informed of the right to a jury trial and that they consciously waived this right. 2. **Proposition II**: On this issue, the court ruled in favor of A.O. The court determined that the state failed to prove each element of the underlying crime of Child Sexual Abuse. Specifically, the court stated that to convict under § 843.5(E), the state bears the burden of proving the elements of lewd acts, which were not sufficiently demonstrated in court. 3. **Proposition III**: The court found the prosecution's remarks during the trial did not constitute plain error, as the comments related to the evidence presented and did not deprive A.O. of a fair trial. **Final Decision:** The adjudicating order of Child Sexual Abuse was **REVERSED**. The matter is **REMANDED** to the district court to amend the adjudication to Assault and Battery under 21 O.S. 2011, § 644. The court affirmed the adjudication as modified. **Dissenting Opinion by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn:** Judge Kuehn expressed concerns about the implications of the majority ruling, arguing that it effectively renders § 843.5(E) unconstitutional due to its vagueness and conflict with age-based elements in other statutes, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement. The dissent maintains that the elements of § 843.5(E) should not require additional instructions unless those elements are included in the Information—and calls for the conviction to be reversed entirely based on the statute's broad language, which might punish conduct that is arguably not criminal. In conclusion, the court's ruling finds resonance in the legislative intention behind the statutes governing Child Sexual Abuse and the need for clarity in legal definitions, especially concerning age restrictions in sexual offenses. **Links:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2018-1066_1734449875.pdf)

F-2018-646

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

F-2017-1098

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1098, Rodger Dale Stevens appealed his conviction for performing a lewd act in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Stevens' conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Stevens was found guilty of a serious crime because he masturbated in front of a seven-year-old boy. The court looked closely at the evidence to see if it proved Stevens was doing this for sexual gratification. The victim testified and provided strong evidence that Stevens derived satisfaction from what he did. Even though Stevens argued that he was just trying to help the boy feel comfortable with his body, the jury did not believe him. Stevens also argued that his punishment was too harsh. Since he had previous felony convictions, his sentence was enhanced under a specific law that allows for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Stevens said the law was applied wrongly and that he should have received a lighter sentence, but the court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the range of punishment. He raised several other issues, including claims that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted, and that his lawyer did not defend him properly. However, the court upheld that the lawyer's actions did not negatively impact the trial's outcome. Stevens argued that the life sentence he received was excessive, even claiming the situation was not severe enough for such a strong punishment. The court disagreed, noting the nature and seriousness of the crime and confirming that the sentence was within legal limits and did not shock the conscience. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the evidence supported the jury's decision and that the legal procedures followed were appropriate.

F-2016-179

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-179, John Stanton Lewis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Lewis's convictions for three counts and modify his conviction for one count from a felony to a misdemeanor, resulting in a shorter sentence. One judge dissented. Lewis was convicted in a district court for several counts involving drugs and a firearm. The jury sentenced him to different terms, including 15 years for possession of methamphetamine after previous felonies, 2 years for firearm possession, 4 years for marijuana possession, and 90 days for drug paraphernalia. The court made these sentences consecutive and gave him credit for time served. Lewis raised four main arguments on appeal: 1. **Illegal Search**: He argued that evidence against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. The court found that the initial entry into his mobile home by law enforcement was legal since it was during a fire incident and they were investigating. Therefore, this argument was denied. 2. **Jury Instructions**: Lewis contended that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishments for his offenses, particularly about the enhancement of his charges due to prior convictions. The court agreed that there was a plain error concerning the instruction for the marijuana possession charge, modifying it to reflect a misdemeanor instead of a felony. His sentence for that charge was reduced from four years to one year. 3. **Evidence for Firearm Charge**: He claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him for possession of a firearm because the state did not prove the firearm he had was capable of firing. The court found that it is not necessary to prove whether the gun could fire for a conviction under the law, so this argument was denied. 4. **Ineffective Counsel**: Lewis argued that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. The court noted that proving ineffective counsel requires showing that the lawyer's mistakes affected the outcome of the trial. Lewis couldn't prove his lawyer was ineffective in this case because the range of punishment given was correct, and therefore, this claim was denied. Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions for several charges, but modified the marijuana possession conviction to reflect a misdemeanor resulting in a shorter sentence. The judgments overall were mostly upheld.

C-2015-573

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

F-2015-187

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

F-2014-889

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 17, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

S-2013-509

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.

S-2013-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.

S-2013-413

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

S-2013-415

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.

F-2011-460

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2012
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.

RE-2011-249

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 28, 2012
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-249, the appellant appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and causing an accident resulting in great bodily injury while driving under the influence. In a published decision, the court decided that the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion and modified the sentence to time served. One judge dissented.

F-2009-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 16, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.

J-2009-0091

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 22, 2009
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2009-0091, C.C.S. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had granted the State's motion to impose an adult sentence on C.C.S. and remanded the case for further proceedings with instructions to sentence C.C.S. as a Youthful Offender if he is convicted of the charged crimes. One judge dissented. C.C.S., who was born on December 28, 1990, faced multiple charges as a Youthful Offender. These included robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and obstructing an officer. The State requested that C.C.S. be sentenced as an adult. After a hearing, a judge decided C.C.S. should be tried as an adult for the robbery charge. C.C.S. then appealed, and the case came before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. During a hearing on April 30, 2009, the court listened to arguments and took time to think about the case. The court determined that the trial court had made a mistake by deciding to treat C.C.S. as an adult. The ruling meant that if C.C.S. was found guilty, he should be treated and sentenced as a Youthful Offender according to the law. This result was based on the idea that the law aims to help young people rehabilitate rather than punish them like adults. The judges in the dissent expressed their disagreement with the majority opinion. They believed that the trial judge had made a reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. They felt that the judge had thought carefully about what would be best for C.C.S., considering his age and the nature of the charges against him. The dissenting opinion also pointed out concerns about how the ruling would work, especially because C.C.S. was almost 18 at the time of the decision and nearly 18.5 years old by the time the case was decided. They referred to specific laws about how young offenders should be treated and raised questions about whether C.C.S. would still be eligible for a Youthful Offender program given his age during the legal proceedings. Overall, the court’s decision aimed to ensure that young people like C.C.S. would have the opportunity for rehabilitation instead of simply being punished as adults for their actions. The focus was on providing a chance for a better future rather than imposing adult penalties.

C-2008-682

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-682, Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, eluding an officer, and driving under suspension. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal and deny the rest. One judge dissented. Williams had entered a nolo contendere plea, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted punishment for the crimes charged. He was sentenced to a total of 51 years in prison and fines for the various offenses. Williams later tried to withdraw his plea, claiming he had not been given the right information about his punishment and that his lawyer had not helped him properly. The court looked closely at Williams’s arguments. They agreed that he did not know he could get jail time for driving under suspension, so they decided to cancel that one-year sentence. However, they found that his pleas for the other charges were made with understanding, and he couldn't show that he would have acted differently if he had known the correct punishments for the other counts. The judges also believed that the prison sentences were not too harsh, and Williams didn’t prove that his lawyer had done a poor job. Since they found that all but one of Williams's claims were not valid, they denied those parts of the appeal. As a result, the court ordered the lower court to fix a small mistake in the paperwork regarding Williams’s plea and the specific laws he was charged with breaking. The end decision allowed Williams to be resentenced for one specific charge and made sure all details were correct in the official records.

C-2007-829

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-829, Jeffery L. Jinks appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. To explain a bit more: Jeffery Jinks pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Sexual Abuse in a district court. The judge accepted his plea and wanted a report to see what his sentence should be. Before he was sentenced, Jinks wanted to take back his plea but the court said no. During his sentencing, he was given a very long sentence of 35 years in prison, with most of that being suspended. This means that he would only serve part of the sentence unless he did something wrong again. Jinks then asked again to take back his plea after the sentencing, but once more the district court said no. After appealing, the court looked at a few important questions: If Jinks really understood what pleading guilty meant, if it was fair for him to be charged as he was, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court decided that Jinks understood his plea and that it was not unfair for him to be charged under the law. However, they did think his sentence was too harsh given his background and decided to change it from 35 years to 20 years in prison, reducing the time he would actually have to serve. So, overall, the court agreed Jinks did something wrong and upheld his conviction but thought the punishment needed to be lighter.

S-2007-31

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-31, Riccardo Gino Ferrante appealed his conviction for violating Oklahoma's Peeping Tom statute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that granted the defendant's motion to quash the charges. One judge dissented. The facts of the case began when Mr. Ferrante was charged with taking inappropriate photographs of a woman in a store without her permission. The law he was charged under says that it is not allowed to use cameras to secretly take pictures of someone in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like dressing rooms or restrooms. The key issue in this case was whether the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was in the store. The district court decided that the law did not apply in this situation because the store was not a place where the woman could expect privacy. The State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. However, the court agreed with the lower court's analysis, saying that the law is clear and does not include what the defendant did. They explained that they cannot expand the law beyond its clear meaning. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Ferrante, saying the action he took was not against the law as written. One judge felt strongly that this decision was wrong and pointed out that when someone dresses modestly, they expect their covered body to remain private. This dissent illustrates the concern about privacy rights for individuals in public spaces.

F-2005-557

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.

F-2005-620

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.