In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-411, Rocky Allen McCracken appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but modified his five-year sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-717, Inez Lee Shaw appealed her conviction for multiple counts of knowingly concealing stolen property and possession of firearms after conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Shaw's sentence for one of the counts from ten years to five years but affirmed the judgments and sentences in all other respects. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-829, Jeffery L. Jinks appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. To explain a bit more: Jeffery Jinks pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Sexual Abuse in a district court. The judge accepted his plea and wanted a report to see what his sentence should be. Before he was sentenced, Jinks wanted to take back his plea but the court said no. During his sentencing, he was given a very long sentence of 35 years in prison, with most of that being suspended. This means that he would only serve part of the sentence unless he did something wrong again. Jinks then asked again to take back his plea after the sentencing, but once more the district court said no. After appealing, the court looked at a few important questions: If Jinks really understood what pleading guilty meant, if it was fair for him to be charged as he was, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court decided that Jinks understood his plea and that it was not unfair for him to be charged under the law. However, they did think his sentence was too harsh given his background and decided to change it from 35 years to 20 years in prison, reducing the time he would actually have to serve. So, overall, the court agreed Jinks did something wrong and upheld his conviction but thought the punishment needed to be lighter.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1168, Steven Allen Flynn, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder, Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of Methamphetamine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. However, they modified his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder to First Degree Manslaughter While Driving Under the Influence and reduced his sentence to twenty years. The court also reversed the conviction for Possession of Marijuana with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.
In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-471, Desiray Jaibai Allen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Allen's sentence but upheld the conviction. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge dissented. Desiray Jaibai Allen was found guilty by a jury for distributing controlled substances and was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. During the appeal, Allen raised several arguments claiming errors during the trial. He felt that improper evidence and misconduct affected his right to a fair trial. The court reviewed all aspects of the case, including trial records and arguments. Although they found some issues with the evidence presented, they decided that these did not require a complete reversal of the conviction. However, they agreed with Allen on one point: certain irrelevant and improper documents should not have been shown to the jury. Because of this, the court reduced his sentences to 15 years for each count instead of 20. The judges discussed other claims made by Allen, such as prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay evidence, but determined that these did not seriously impact the fairness of the trial. The accumulation of errors didn't lead to a requirement for further action beyond reducing the sentences. Ultimately, while the judgment of conviction remained intact, the sentences were modified to less time in prison. Thus, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but adjusted how long Allen would need to serve for the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.
In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-855, Fomby appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Fomby was found guilty of several crimes in Comanche County. He received a long sentence of sixty years for each burglary, two years for the possession of methamphetamine, and ten years for concealing stolen property. These sentences were to be served one after the other, making the total time very long. Fomby claimed that there were many mistakes during his trial. He said the court wrongly changed a standard instruction by adding details about his past sentences, which might have influenced the jury. He also mentioned that the prosecutor said he was no longer considered innocent before the trial even concluded, which he felt was unfair. Furthermore, he argued that the court allowed evidence of other crimes unfairly, and he did not get a fair hearing for new charges that were added. The appeal court looked at all these claims. They agreed that the change in jury instruction was a mistake and the prosecutor's comments on Fomby's innocence were improper. Because of these two main points, the court decided to change his sentences from sixty years each to thirty years to be served together instead of one after the other. They concluded that some of Fomby’s other arguments did not have enough merit to change the outcome of the case. For example, they found there was enough evidence to show he knowingly hid stolen items and had possession of methamphetamine. In the end, most of Fomby's convictions were upheld, but his sentences were significantly reduced to make them less severe. One judge did not agree with this modification, believing the original sentences were justified given Fomby’s serious crimes and history.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1283, Marion Whitmore appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) After Two or More Prior Convictions, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for possession of methamphetamine from sixty-five years to thirty-five years. One judge dissented, arguing that the original sentence should not have been modified as any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.