Life Imprisonment

C-2006-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-863, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for further review. One member of the court dissented. To explain further, the case began when the petitioner, Wilkerson, entered a blind plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty without any deal from the prosecutor, to a serious charge of First Degree Manslaughter. This happened in the Tulsa County District Court. In June 2006, the court accepted his plea and decided that he would spend life in prison, but he would only have to serve 20 years of that sentence right away. The court also ordered him to pay $10,000 as restitution. A little later, in July 2006, Wilkerson wanted to take back his plea and filed a motion to withdraw it, but the court said no after a hearing in August. Following this, Wilkerson decided to appeal and asked for a special review from the OCCA. During the appeal, Wilkerson pointed out three main areas he felt were wrong: 1. He believed his sentence was affected by bias and improper evidence presented in court, leading to a sentence that was too harsh. 2. He argued that he should not have to pay the $10,000 fine since it was not mentioned correctly in the sentence. 3. He wanted the official records to show the date his sentence was first pronounced, which was June 23, 2006. After looking at all the records, it was determined that Wilkerson's plea was made willingly and his sentence was not excessive. The court agreed that the $10,000 fine was wrongly imposed and should be removed, but they also acknowledged that the trial court had done the right thing by dismissing the restitution order since no evidence supported it. The decision concluded with the court denying Wilkerson’s request for a special review but correcting the record to eliminate the fine and officially reflecting the correct date of sentencing.

Continue ReadingC-2006-863

F-2006-352

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2006-352

F-2006-113

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2006-113

C 2006-497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2006-497, Tommy Lee Williams appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Williams' sentence. One judge dissented. Tommy Williams pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, which is a serious crime involving harm to children. He was initially given a very long sentence of life in prison, but with 30 years of it suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that part if he followed certain rules while on probation. The court also said he would need to follow rules as a violent offender for his whole life. Williams didn't agree with the sentence. He thought it was way too harsh. He also mentioned that the judge might have taken unproven bad behavior into account when deciding the punishment. Williams' lawyers believed that the judge had made some mistakes, so they filed a motion asking the court to let him change his guilty plea. They pointed out four main issues they thought were problems with the judge's decisions. First, they argued that the length of the sentence was surprising and excessive. Second, they felt the judge didn't check if Tommy was mentally ready to go through with the plea. Third, they claimed it wasn’t fair for the judge to make Williams be on supervision for life, as that's a long time. Fourth, they said Tommy wasn't clearly told about the potential length of his sentence and a special rule that could mean he'd have to serve 85% of his time before getting out. The court looked through all the information presented in the case. They decided that Williams' sentence was too harsh when they compared it with similar cases. They agreed that some of the reasons the trial judge gave for his decision weren't valid. Child abuse is serious, but the punishment given to Williams felt wrong to the appeals court. About the lifetime supervision, the court believed that was also not right. They then concluded that they needed to change the sentence to make it fairer. In the end, the court lowered Williams' sentence to 20 years instead of life. They said he would still need to follow rules during his time in prison, but that the earlier sentence was just too much for the crime he committed. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure their decision was put into action.

Continue ReadingC 2006-497

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527

F 2004-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1198, David Lynn Nelson appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one. One judge dissented on the matter of that specific count. Nelson was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including two counts of Rape by Instrumentation, four counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy, two counts of First Degree Rape, and one count of Attempted Rape. He had previous felony convictions, which affected his sentencing. The jury sentenced him to 40 years in prison plus fines for some counts, while for the others, he received life imprisonment and higher fines. The sentences for all counts were set to run at the same time. During the appeal process, Nelson raised several issues. First, he claimed that he did not receive good help from his lawyer during the trial. However, the court found that his lawyer made decisions that were reasonable, so this claim was dismissed. Nelson also wanted the jury to be informed about new rules that would affect how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole, but the court did not grant this request. The court later decided it was important to adjust his life sentences to a total of 45 years instead. Moreover, Nelson argued that the evidence did not clearly show he committed one of the charges, specifically concerning the forcible oral sodomy. The court looked at the details of the evidence and found it lacking in proving that aspect, leading to the reversal of that particular count. In summary, the court upheld most of the convictions, but one was removed, and the sentences for the life terms were reduced, while the other penalties remained unchanged. The judge who disagreed with reversing the sodomy conviction felt that the evidence given during the trial was enough to support that finding.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1198

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F-2004-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-874, Pierson appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Deitric Benard Pierson was found guilty of sexually abusing a twelve-year-old girl, referred to as L.H. The case started when L.H. told her mother that Pierson had done something inappropriate to her. She explained to her mother and grandmother that he had pulled her pants down and touched her with his private parts. There was also DNA evidence that connected Pierson to the abuse. During the trial, the girl did not testify herself, but her statements to her mother, grandmother, and a social worker were presented as evidence. Pierson argued that this was unfair because he could not cross-examine the girl, which is normally his right in court. The court decided that the girl's statements were reliable and allowed them to be presented. Pierson raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the way jurors were chosen was unfair because some were removed based on race. He also argued that he should have been informed about how much time he needed to serve before being eligible for parole. Additionally, he felt that his sentence was too harsh and should be changed. After looking at all the issues, the court concluded that most of the problems Pierson pointed out were not strong enough to change the decision. They recognized that the failure to inform the jury about parole eligibility was a mistake and adjusted his sentence from life in prison to thirty years. However, one judge thought that changing the sentence was not correct because the jury had decided he should spend life in prison, and he felt that altering that decision disregarded the jury's authority. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed to change the length of the sentence, allowing Pierson a chance for parole after serving thirty years instead of life in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2004-874

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F-2004-971

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.

Continue ReadingF-2004-971

F-2004-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-825

F 2003-1084

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1084

C-2005-120

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.

Continue ReadingC-2005-120

F-2004-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2004-110, Kelly Dallas Evans appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Possession of Burglary Tools. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences, although they modified the fine for the possession of burglary tools. One justice dissented. Evans was found guilty by a jury of burglary after they considered his past felony convictions. The jury recommended a life sentence for the burglary and a one-year jail sentence for having burglary tools, along with a fine. Evans argued that the prosecutor made unfair comments about his silence during the trial, that his life sentence was too harsh for a property crime, and that the fine for the misdemeanor was too high. The court examined Evans' complaints. They noted that his claims about the prosecutor’s comments were not raised during the trial, meaning they were looked at carefully for any major mistakes. They found that the prosecutor's remarks did not directly point to Evans not testifying but were more about the weak defense he presented. On the issue of his life sentence, the court recognized that it seemed severe, but they upheld it based on Evans' criminal history, saying it did not shock their sense of fairness. Regarding the fine for possession of burglary tools, the court agreed it was too high and decreased it to the correct maximum amount. In summary, the court confirmed Evans' long prison term for the burglary but changed the fine for the other charge.

Continue ReadingF-2004-110

F-2003-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.

Continue ReadingF-2003-991

F-2004-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-198

F-2003-1278

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1278

F-2003-717

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-717, Paul Delmer Morgan appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Morgan's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Morgan was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison and a $100,000 fine. He challenged his conviction by claiming there were six main problems with the trial. First, he argued that there was evidence shown to the jury about other crimes he committed, which he felt was unfair. Second, he said the judge should have told the jury how to use statements from a witness who had changed his story. Third, he thought the judge did not properly warn the jury about trusting the informant’s testimony. Fourth, he believed the fine he received was too high because of how the judge gave instructions to the jury. Fifth, Morgan thought that his sentence was too harsh. Lastly, he claimed that taken together, these errors made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court found that the evidence about the other crimes was closely connected to his current case, so it could be allowed. They also noted that Morgan did not object to it during the trial, which meant he could not easily argue against it now. Regarding the witness’s inconsistent statements, the court agreed that the judge should have explained this to the jury, but they ruled that it did not hurt Morgan's case. The informant's testimony was supported by other evidence, so the lack of instruction on that wasn't a problem. They also decided that the fine imposed on Morgan was too high. Instead of $100,000, they lowered it to the maximum allowed by law, which was $10,000. Finally, the court felt that a life sentence for selling a small amount of cocaine was too extreme, even with Morgan’s prior criminal record. They changed his sentence to 20 years in prison instead. In conclusion, while the court confirmed Morgan's conviction, they modified his sentence to 20 years and a $10,000 fine. However, one judge disagreed with modifying the sentence, believing that the jury had made the right decision based on the evidence they had.

Continue ReadingF-2003-717

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196

F 2003-189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-189, James Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. James Dean Meadows was found guilty of First Degree Murder by a jury. The trial took place in Oklahoma City from February 10 to 18, 2003. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for his crime. After being sentenced on February 21, 2003, Meadows appealed, bringing up five issues he believed were wrong with the trial. One of the key issues was about how his videotaped statement to the police was collected. Meadows argued that the police violated his rights by not properly informing him of his right to remain silent before they questioned him. He claimed that he was not voluntarily giving his statement, as he was taken from his home by police with guns drawn, and they did not tell him he was under arrest at the time. The police later interviewed him at their station, where they pressured him to admit his involvement in the crime. The court found that Meadows was indeed not free to leave when the police took him from his home, which meant that he was effectively under arrest without being formally informed. Because of this illegal seizure, the court ruled that his confession to the police could not be used as evidence against him. The court stated that such a confession was obtained without the rights requiring a formal warning being given to Meadows. Since the court decided that Meadow's confession was not admissible, the judgment against him was reversed, meaning he would have to be tried again. Because of this decision, the other issues raised in the appeal were not considered. In summary, the court determined that James Dean Meadows should have a new trial because the way the police obtained his confession was illegal and violated his rights.

Continue ReadingF 2003-189

F-2003-747

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.

Continue ReadingF-2003-747

F 2002-1259

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1259, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree, robbery with imitation firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented, stating that eleven life sentences shocked the court's conscience but eight did not.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1259