In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.
In OCCA case No. F-01-313, *Steven Wayne Robertson* appealed his conviction for *Attempted Burglary in the First Degree* and *Assault with a Dangerous Weapon*. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Robertson was found guilty by a jury for two crimes. He was accused of trying to break into a house (attempted burglary) and attacking someone with a weapon (assault). The jury decided to give him a ten-year prison sentence for each crime, which would usually mean he would spend twenty years in prison, but the court later decided he would serve both sentences at the same time, totaling ten years. Robertson claimed that it was unfair to punish him twice for what he said was one event. However, the court concluded that the two charges were based on different actions and that he could be punished for both. They looked at the evidence, like a witness who saw him with an axe, showing he was dangerous. He also said he should have had the chance to argue that he only caused damage to property instead of trying to break in, but the court found that this was not needed based on the facts of the case. Finally, Robertson thought he did not get a fair trial because of some things the prosecutor said during the trial. The court agreed that there were improper comments but still decided to keep the guilty verdicts and just change the sentences so that he would serve ten years instead of twenty.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1262, Robert Anthony Lamar appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Robert Anthony Lamar was found guilty by a jury of taking a U-Haul truck without permission. He claimed he only wanted to drive the truck to see what it felt like and intended to return it right after. The jury believed that he did not intend to keep the truck permanently, but the trial court did not let the jury consider a possible lesser charge of joyriding. Lamar raised several points in his appeal. He argued that it was unfair for the court to give the instructions it did without his request and that there wasn’t enough proof to show he meant to keep the truck. But the main issue was that he should have been able to have a chance to be judged on the lesser offense of joyriding, since his actions matched that claim too. The court found that joyriding was indeed a valid option for the jury to consider, and since the jury’s decision did not support the idea of him wanting to permanently take the truck, he deserved a fair chance to contest the lesser charge. Because of this, the court ruled that the prior judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.