In OCCA case No. C-2019-489, Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death, Child Neglect, and Arson in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to deny her petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the District Court's judgment. However, the case was remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the judgment regarding the imposition of costs. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-493, Billy D. Stout appealed his conviction for violating the Sex Offenders Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Stout the right to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Stout had pleaded guilty to not registering as a sex offender. He was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5000. However, Stout later argued that he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, especially because he could not read or write. After leaving jail, he was not properly informed that he needed to register whenever he moved to a new place. Stout said that when he was released from jail, he received paperwork that he could not read, and no one explained to him that he had to register. Although Stout eventually registered once he understood the requirement, he faced charges for not having registered earlier. The court found that Stout's plea was not made willingly and that there was no clear reason to support the plea in the first place. Stout's lawyer did not present any strong arguments during the plea withdrawal hearing, and it seemed they did not understand the law themselves. The court noted that the lack of help Stout received from his lawyer contributed to his confusion and affected his ability to make a fully informed decision about his plea. Overall, the judges concluded that Stout's case should be revisited, and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and possibly go to trial. The law encourages trying cases in court rather than accepting a guilty plea without a fair understanding.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-298, Edward Charles Scott appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and remand the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Edward Charles Scott was charged with two counts of distributing drugs and one count of conspiring to distribute drugs in Stephens County. On November 19, 2001, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 40 years in prison for each count, with the sentences running at the same time, and he was also fined $2,500 for each count. Scott later filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea, claiming that his lawyer did not help him properly. He had a hearing on this motion, but the court refused his request. Scott also filed other motions seeking to remove his guilty pleas and sought help for an appeal later on. The court allowed him an appeal out of time after concluding that his lawyer had not filed the appeal correctly. Scott raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer when he claimed his lawyer wasn’t doing a good job. He also believed he should be allowed to take back his guilty pleas because he didn’t understand everything. He felt his prison sentence was too long and suggested the trial court did not check if he was really able to understand what he was pleading guilty to. Lastly, he argued that there was not enough proof that he was guilty of conspiracy. After reviewing everything, the court decided Scott did not show that his lawyer had a real conflict of interest. There was no evidence that Scott did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, as he admitted his guilt during the processes. The court noted that being unhappy with the length of his sentence was not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found some mixed statements about whether Scott was sentenced as a repeat offender or a first-time offender. These inconsistencies meant the case needed to go back to the lower court for a new sentencing. While the court thought the original inquiry into Scott’s mental competence could have been better, the records showed he was capable of understanding his charges and the guilty pleas he entered. The court also confirmed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the end, the court agreed with some points but decided Scott's case needed to return for resentencing due to the unclear basis for his sentence, even as they upheld the rejection of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.