Mandate Archives - Page 6 of 7

F-2007-848

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-848, Marvis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, and pointing a firearm at another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm but reversed and dismissed the conviction for pointing a firearm. One judge dissented. Marvis Evans was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison for each crime, but some sentences would be served at the same time. Evans argued that he was punished unfairly because of double jeopardy, meaning he did not think he should be tried and punished for the same act in two different ways. He also claimed there wasn't enough proof to prove he committed the crimes. The court looked at Evans's arguments closely. They found that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, and the law does allow for those two separate charges. However, they agreed that Evans was punished too harshly for pointing a firearm, which they decided to dismiss because it was too similar to the robbery charge. In the end, the court confirmed that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, but not for pointing a firearm. They ruled that the evidence against him was strong, including being caught shortly after the crime and making incriminating statements to police. Therefore, the court upheld part of his punishment but removed one conviction.

F-2007-856

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-856, Ricky Louis Hunter appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 and Unlawful Use of a Computer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count while dismissing the second count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.

F-2007-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 25, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-336, Michelle Ann Barry appealed her conviction for First-Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Michelle Ann Barry was found guilty of murdering her infant daughter, Andrea Heath. The jury decided on a life sentence for Barry. Barry argued that the evidence against her was not strong enough to prove she was guilty. Her main point was that the evidence only suggested she might be guilty but did not rule out other possibilities of who could have harmed her child. The court explained that it had to look at the evidence in a way that favored the state. They concluded that the jury could have believed Barry was the one who harmed her daughter. This was largely because the only other person awake during the incident was Barry's five-year-old son, who was too small to cause the injuries. Barry also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job defending her in court. To win this point, she had to show that her lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes changed the outcome of her case. She pointed out that her lawyer failed to object to certain evidence that could have hurt her chances in the trial, like bad character evidence about her lifestyle and drug use. The court agreed with Barry that her lawyer's performance was lacking. They noted that her lawyer didn’t challenge negative testimony that could mislead the jury, and importantly, did not find experts to counter the claims made about her son’s physical inability to cause the injuries. Due to the many mistakes made by her lawyer during the trial, the court felt that Barry's conviction couldn’t stand. They reversed her conviction which means she would have a chance at a new trial to present her case again. One judge dissented, believing that the conviction should be upheld.

F-2006-1208

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 23, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1208, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Carr being convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The main issue during his appeal was that Carr was not given a fair trial because he could not remove a juror who showed bias towards police officers. This juror openly stated he would believe police testimonies more than other witness statements, which raised concerns about his ability to be fair. The court agreed that this bias should have led to the juror's removal. They noted that when any doubts exist about a juror's fairness, they should favor the accused. Since this bias was significant, the court ruled that Carr did not receive proper justice and ordered a new trial. They decided not to consider other issues raised in the appeal since the need for a new trial was clear. In summary, the court found that an unfair juror could have influenced the case against Carr, leading to their decision to reverse the conviction and mandate a new trial.

S 2007-1212

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2007-1212, Jason L. Bandy appealed his conviction for Negligent Homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal regarding the suppression of a blood test. The court found that the State did not show that reviewing the case would be in the best interests of justice, and they concluded that the suppressed evidence was not a significant part of their case against Bandy. Consequently, the case was sent back to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. One judge dissented.

S-2007-668

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-668, the defendant appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. One judge dissented.

RE 2007-0484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.

S-2008-53

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.

RE-2007-323

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-323, Durant appealed his conviction for the unlawful use of photographic equipment for lewd and lascivious purposes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. To provide a bit more detail: Durant had entered a plea of no contest to a charge of second-degree rape in 2003 but received a suspended sentence. In 2005, he was charged with a new crime, which caused the state to seek to revoke his suspended sentence. After being convicted of the new offense in 2006, his suspended sentence was revoked in 2007. Durant argued that the law used to revoke his sentence was unconstitutional, that evidence against him was gathered illegally, and that there wasn't enough evidence for revocation. Later, in May 2008, the court reversed his conviction for the new crime, suggesting that his actions, though not acceptable, did not fit the legal definition of a crime. Because his suspended sentence was based only on that conviction, the court reversed the decision to revoke it.

C-2007-968

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 15, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-968, Aminu Inuwa appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided that Inuwa was denied effective assistance of counsel because of an attorney-created conflict of interest. The decision was that his application to withdraw his guilty pleas was to be granted, and the case was sent back for a proper hearing on that application. One member of the court dissented.

S-2007-885

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-885, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions made by the lower courts. One judge dissented. The case started in the District Court of Tulsa County, where the defendant was accused of not registering as a sex offender. After looking at the evidence presented by the state, the special judge decided there was not enough evidence to go to trial. The state didn't agree and decided to appeal this decision, claiming that the lower courts made errors in their judgments. The main points raised in the appeal included whether there was enough evidence to charge the defendant, if the defense of being homeless should be considered, and if homelessness could excuse the defendant from registering as a sex offender. After listening to arguments and reviewing all the evidence and decisions made previously, the court found that the lower courts did not make mistakes. The judges agreed that there was not enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial and that the reasons given by the lower courts were valid. As a result, the court upheld the decisions of the lower judges and ruled that the defendant would not be tried for the charges brought against him. The final orders from the lower courts were affirmed, meaning that the case was closed without any changes.

F-2006-1339

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.

RE-2006-1322

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1322, a person appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's revocation of his suspended sentence and instructed the District Court to vacate the sentence imposed. One judge dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea in 2001 for First Degree Rape. He was originally sentenced to seven years in prison, with three years served and the rest suspended, meaning he would be on probation under certain conditions. In 2006, the state filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he did not register as a sex offender, did not pay his probation fees, and did not pay fines. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence entirely. The person argued that his sentence was illegal because he was treated as a youthful offender, which is for younger people who commit crimes. He maintained that he should not have been sent to an adult prison. The court found that he had been correctly charged as a youthful offender and that the state did not follow proper procedures to change his status. The court also ruled that the lower court committed an error by sentencing him as an adult instead of as a youthful offender, which was against the law. Since he was now older, they could not send him back for new sentencing as a youthful offender, and the original sentence needed to be canceled. In summary, the appellate court acted to correct the mistakes made in the original sentencing, showing that legal procedures must be followed when sentencing individuals, especially those classified as youthful offenders.

C-2007-50

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 14, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-50, the petitioner appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented. The petitioner was originally charged in the Oklahoma County District Court with unlawful possession of a handgun based on previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each case. These sentences were set to run at the same time, which is known as concurrently. Later, the petitioner asked to withdraw his guilty plea. He believed he did not receive proper legal help during the hearing for this request because his lawyer had a conflict of interest. This means that the lawyer might have been more focused on their own issues instead of helping the petitioner. Even though the petitioner did not raise the problem of the conflict during the hearing, the court found that the situation affected the performance of his lawyer. Because of this, the court decided that the petitioner had been denied his right to effective legal assistance. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, which is a formal request to review the decision, and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. At this new hearing, the petitioner will have the chance to be represented by a lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

RE 2007-0517

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 4, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.

M 2007-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 3, 2008
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2007-0118, the appellant appealed his conviction for public drunkenness. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Here’s a brief summary of what happened. The appellant was found guilty of public drunkenness after a bench trial in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City. He was fined $69. The case began when the police received a noise complaint about the appellant's hotel suite, where he was hosting a group of kids for a football event. The kids had left earlier in the evening, and only a few adults remained. When the police arrived, they noted a strong smell of alcohol on the appellant. However, witnesses said they weren't drinking that night, including the appellant himself. During the trial, it was revealed that the appellant had a speech impediment, which may have been mistaken for drunkenness. Even though the police claimed the appellant was belligerent and had slurred speech, there was no strong evidence that he was actually intoxicated or causing any disturbance in a public place. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of public intoxication. They concluded that he was not drunk while in a public area, as he was in a rented hotel suite at the time. Based on this, the court reversed the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case.

F-2006-1242

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 15, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1242, Andruss Lee Flowers appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia, Obstructing an Officer, and Possession of a Firearm While in Commission of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the latter four counts but modified his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs to the lesser offense of Possession with Intent to Distribute. One judge dissented regarding the modification of Count I.

M-2007-62

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 1, 2008
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2007-62, Jimmy Dale Luttrell appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Luttrell's conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Luttrell was found guilty by a special judge and was sentenced to one year in jail with the sentence suspended, along with fines and costs. The main issue in the appeal was the lack of evidence against Luttrell. The victim, who was Luttrell's wife, did not testify at the trial. Since the wife did not provide testimony, the judge did not allow police officers to share what she had told them or to show her written statement. This left no evidence that proved Luttrell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The State tried to argue that even without the victim's testimony, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude Luttrell was guilty. However, the court found that in previous similar cases, the victim's statements were allowed as evidence. Since Luttrell's case did not have any proof to establish that he committed the crime, the court reversed his conviction. Because of double jeopardy rules, Luttrell cannot be tried again for the same accusation, and the case was sent back to dismiss the charges.

F-2006-341

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 7, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-341, Steven Dale Countryman appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, possession of a police scanner during a felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently, with three years of the sentence on the first count being suspended. One judge dissented.

RE-2006-262

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.

RE-2006-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

RE-2006-363

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-363, the appellant appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified the sentence to six years of incarceration. One judge dissented. The background of the case includes that the appellant entered a guilty plea in July 2003 and was sentenced to twelve years, which was suspended on the condition that she complete an inpatient drug treatment program. However, in March 2005, the state filed an application to revoke her suspended sentence due to several violations, including failure to report to her probation officer and failing to comply with drug testing and treatment requirements. The court found that she also had new drug-related charges against her. In November 2005, a hearing took place where she admitted to the violations. The court then revoked her suspended sentence completely. The appellant later tried to withdraw her plea regarding the revocation but was denied. The review showed that the court followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the decision to revoke her sentence. Although the court upheld the decision, it decided to lower the amount of time she would spend incarcerated from twelve years to six years.

F-2005-1031

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

S-2005-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

F 2004-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-866, Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial in two of the three related cases, while affirming the conviction in the third case. One judge dissented. Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for offenses related to shooting at people, which included Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting with Intent to Kill. The jury gave him a total of twelve years for the two Assault and Battery charges and twenty-five years for the shooting charge, which were to be served one after the other. Ricky raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, like not following the law to instruct the jury correctly on the charges. He claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions and that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. He also stated the prosecutor did wrong things during the trial and that some evidence shouldn't have been allowed. Additionally, he felt the instructions given to the jury about sentencing were confusing and that all the mistakes made during the trial added up to make it unfair for him. After looking closely at what Ricky said and the court records, the court agreed that he deserved a new trial for the Assault and Battery charges because the jury was wrongly instructed about the law. But for the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, the court thought the evidence was enough to support that conviction, so they upheld it. The court decided that many of Ricky's claims about mistakes during the trial did not change the outcome for the Shooting charge, so it stayed as is. However, since there was a legal mistake about the Assault and Battery charges, those were thrown out, and he was ordered to be tried again. In conclusion, the final decision was to keep the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and to conduct new trials for the other two charges.