Medical Records Archives

F-2018-964

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In the case of Robert Paul Lockner, Sr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed Lockner's conviction for assault and battery against police officers. Lockner was sentenced to four years in prison for each of the two counts, to be served consecutively. He raised several arguments on appeal, which the court addressed. 1. **Self-Defense Instruction**: Lockner contended that the trial court erred by not providing a jury instruction on self-defense. However, the court upheld that the trial court acted within its discretion, asserting that Lockner did not demonstrate entitlement to such an instruction as per the law governing use of force by police officers in effecting an arrest. 2. **Other Crimes Evidence**: Lockner argued that the introduction of evidence showing methamphetamine in his system at the time of arrest was improper because the state failed to notify him beforehand. The court found that this evidence was part of the res gestae of the charged offense, meaning it was closely connected to the events of the crime. Therefore, it was not subject to the notice requirement. They ruled that the evidence’s probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. 3. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: Lockner claimed that the combined effect of multiple alleged errors warranted a new trial. The court determined that since no individual error was sustained, there was no basis for a cumulative error claim. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that Lockner's rights had not been violated and he had not demonstrated any errors that would warrant reversal of his conviction. In a special concurrence, Judge Kuehn elaborated on the inadmissibility of the drug test results in the state’s case-in-chief, but agreed that their eventual admission did not affect Lockner’s substantial rights due to the potential for impeachment in his own testimony. The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ensures that Lockner's conviction stands, as all claims for relief were denied.

F 2005-281

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 15, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.