In OCCA case No. M 2015-1099, Phantirath appealed her conviction for engaging in prostitution and operating a place of prostitution. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her convictions because she was not allowed to enter a guilty plea, which is a right for defendants. One judge dissented, stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-854, Cory James Leon Whiteside appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition, allowing him to withdraw his pleas. One member of the court dissented. Whiteside pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving domestic violence. The court sentenced him to one year in jail for each charge, with the sentences to run one after the other. Shortly after pleading guilty, Whiteside asked to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, stating he had not understood the consequences of his plea. His request to withdraw his plea was denied by the court. Whiteside then appealed this decision, arguing two main points. First, he claimed he did not knowingly and voluntarily give up his right to have an attorney represent him during the case. Second, he argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he didn't fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court reviewed the entire record of the case. It found that Whiteside's waiver of his right to counsel was not made in a knowing and voluntary way, meaning there was no clear record showing that he understood what self-representation involved or that he had been advised of the risks of not having a lawyer. The state even agreed with this point. Because this error was significant, the court decided to let Whiteside withdraw his guilty pleas. Following this decision, the other issue Whiteside raised became unnecessary to address. Therefore, the court ordered that Whiteside be allowed to withdraw his pleas.
In OCCA case No. M-2014-235, Donald Wayne Farino appealed his conviction for Obtaining Cash By False Pretenses and Petit Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and send the case back for a new trial. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-286, Ketcher appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the $5000 fine associated with the felony offense. One judge dissented. Ketcher was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including eluding police, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and having improper vehicle equipment. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison and received various fines based on his convictions. The main point of his appeal was about the eluding charge, where he argued that the evidence was not strong enough to show he endangered others while trying to escape the police. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including video footage, demonstrated that Ketcher did endanger others. He ran stop signs and drove very fast through neighborhoods, even close to pedestrians. Therefore, the court felt that a reasonable person could find him guilty of the charge beyond doubt. Ketcher also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury about a lesser charge for eluding. However, the court stated that the evidence did not support this request, so they denied it. Additionally, the court acknowledged a mistake in how the jury was told about fines for the felony eluding charge. It should have been clear that the jury had the choice to impose a fine rather than it being mandatory. Because of this, they removed the $5000 fine from Ketcher's sentence. Regarding other claims of unfairness during the trial, the court found no serious problems that damaged Ketcher’s right to a fair trial. They noted that much of what the prosecutor said during the trial was based on evidence presented. Ketcher also claimed his attorney did not do a good job, but since the court found no serious errors during the trial, they did not agree with this claim. The final decision by the court was to uphold the prison sentences but to remove the fine, allowing them to issue their final ruling without more delays.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-687, the appellant appealed his conviction for DUI manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death. Two justices dissented from the decision. The case involved an incident that took place on October 11, 2012, when the appellee was charged with first-degree manslaughter. This charge stemmed from the accidental death of his wife, Linda Vaughan, while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Vaughan was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .14, and that his wife had exited the truck he was driving. She was killed when he accidentally ran over her. Vaughan argued that the state's evidence failed to show that his driving while intoxicated was the direct cause of Linda's death. Testimony from a highway patrolman indicated that while Vaughan may have been more aware of his surroundings if he were sober, Linda's death would have occurred regardless of his intoxication. The court examined whether the state had presented enough evidence to prove that the appellee's actions directly caused the victim's death. They found that the evidence showed Linda made the choice to leave the vehicle and that her death was caused by her own actions, not by the appellee's impaired driving. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of DUI manslaughter, the court upheld the decision of the lower court, which had granted Vaughan's demurrer, meaning they did not find probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to support the charge against Vaughan. The decision did not minimize the tragedy of the accident but emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-170, Darnell Lamar Wright appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, False Personation, and Assault while Masked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation but reversed the conviction for Assault while Masked. One judge dissented. The case began when Wright was tried by a jury and found guilty on multiple counts. The jury recommended a life sentence for the robbery charge, four years for false personation, and twenty years for assault while masked. The judge sentenced him accordingly, ordering the sentences to run one after another. Wright raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made errors that affected the fairness of his trial. One main concern was about how the court answered a jury question regarding parole eligibility for some of the charges. Wright claimed that the response was confusing and led to misunderstandings about how long he might serve. He also contended that there wasn't enough proof for the false personation charge, and he believed the law about that charge was unclear and unfair. Additionally, he argued that being convicted of both robbery with a firearm and assault while masked for the same act was not right, claiming it violated the principle against double jeopardy. Wright thought that evidence shown during the trial, which wasn’t directly related to him or the robbery, shouldn't have been allowed. He felt that this hurt his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he claimed that many small errors during the trial added up to deny him a fair chance. After reviewing Wright's arguments and the entire case, the court found that there was a valid point in Wright's argument about the assault charge. The court agreed that the attack with a weapon and the robbery were part of the same event and therefore should not both result in separate punishments. However, they found no substantial errors with the other appeals he raised. The judges stated that the original instructions the jury received were clear and that any confusion they had didn’t change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the law concerning false personation was not vague and that the evidence against Wright was sufficient for the charges. Thus, while the court upheld the convictions for robbery and false personation, they overturned Wright’s conviction for assault while masked, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. The decision meant that Wright would have to serve time for the robbery and false personation but not for the assault.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-590, Todd Aaron Henderson appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to vacate the order revoking Henderson's suspended sentence and dismiss the State's application to revoke. No judge dissented. Henderson had first entered a guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence in 2009, and his sentence was put on hold while he completed a drug court program. After successfully finishing the program in January 2011, his charge was changed to a misdemeanor, and he was given a one-year suspended sentence. However, in January 2012, he was stopped by police and faced new charges, including a second DUI. Following these new charges, the State requested to revoke his suspended sentence. In June 2012, the court revoked Henderson's suspended sentence based on the new charges. On appeal, Henderson argued that the court did not have the authority to revoke his sentence because the State filed the application for revocation one day after his sentence had completed. The State agreed with Henderson, stating that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the sentence since the request was submitted after the completion of the suspended sentence. The court ruled in favor of Henderson, reversing the revocation, and ordered the case to be remanded with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke his sentence.
In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-684, Harold Robert Walker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs (Second Offense), Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana) (Second Offense), and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Walker's participation in the Drug Court program, but it remanded the case to correct sentences that exceeded the maximum punishment allowed by law. One justice dissented on the issue of resentencing.
In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1123, Chance appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Chance was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime and also had illegal drug items in his possession. The jury decided his punishment: thirty years in prison for the burglary and one year in jail for the drug paraphernalia. The court added that these sentences would be served at the same time. Chance raised a few complaints. He argued the prosecutor made improper statements about probation and parole during the trial, which made it unfair for him. He also believed the procedures and instructions during his drug paraphernalia case were wrong and that the court didn't follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay back to the victim for restitution. After looking closely at the case, the court agreed that there were mistakes made. The court recognized that the references to probation and parole might have affected the jury's decision on sentencing. Because of this, they lowered Chance's prison sentence from thirty years to twenty years. For the drug paraphernalia charge, the jury was told the wrong information regarding potential punishment, which the court found to be a serious error. They changed Chance's sentence for this from one year in jail to thirty days instead. Lastly, the court agreed with Chance's complaint about the restitution process. They decided the original amount couldn’t stand and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate how much he needed to pay the victim. In summary, the court kept the guilty verdict but changed the length of Chance's sentences and ordered a new hearing for restitution amounts. One judge felt that the original prison sentence should not have been changed since there was no clear evidence of unfairness affecting the jury.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.
In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.