In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-326, Maurice Cortez Washington, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Transporting an Open Container of Beer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Washington's conviction but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment for the first count. One member dissented, arguing that the trial counsel's comments were a reasonable strategic decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-433, #x appealed his conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years. #n dissented. Vicki Leigh Chiles was the owner of a day care and was taking care of several children, including a two-year-old boy named Joshua Minton. One day, Joshua didn't want to take his afternoon nap and was being noisy. To handle this, Chiles put him in a separate bedroom by himself and covered his mouth and hands with masking tape. Tragically, while he was alone, Joshua vomited and suffocated. When officials arrived at the day care for a surprise inspection, they found Chiles trying to give Joshua CPR. Unfortunately, he was not breathing, and emergency responders could not save him. The medical examiner determined that Joshua died due to lack of oxygen caused by the masking tape blocking his mouth after he vomited. During the trial, Chiles wanted the jury to be told that her actions could be considered an accident and asked for instructions about discipline. However, the court denied these requests. The court determined that it was clear her actions were not done with usual caution, which meant they couldn't qualify as an accident under the law. Chiles also argued that the jury should have been allowed to consider a lesser charge of second-degree murder. However, the court explained that because Joshua was a child and Chiles’ actions were considered unreasonable force, this charge was not available. Additionally, Chiles felt it was a mistake that the jury wasn't properly informed about what life without parole meant. The jury had confusion about the sentencing options available to them regarding her punishment. Due to this confusion, the court decided to change her sentence to allow for the possibility of parole after thirty years, instead of life without parole. In conclusion, while Chiles' conviction was upheld, her punishment was modified to allow for the possibility of parole, recognizing the jury's confusion about the sentencing terms.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1057, Saul Mintz appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that while his conviction was affirmed, his sentence for the second count should be modified to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-405, Clarence Edward Reed appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Reed's conviction but modified his sentence to six years in prison instead of eight. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1230, a person appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The person, who was found guilty of trying to break into a garage, admitted to the police that he was looking for tools to fix his car. However, the court determined that this was not a good enough reason to justify his actions in attempting to commit burglary, so the evidence supported his conviction. The appellant raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction, and claimed that two of his previous convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence, came from the same incident. He also argued that the introduction of some unfair evidence during the trial and the instruction given to the jury resulted in a higher sentence than warranted. Another point of contention was that a new law reducing penalties for certain non-violent offenders should apply to him. However, the court found that this new law could not be applied to his case because it was not stated that it should apply to past cases. Finally, he claimed that the cumulative errors in his trial affected the fairness of the verdict, but the court found that the only issue that warranted a change was the irrelevant evidence that influenced the length of his sentence. In summary, the court agreed that some aspects of the trial weren't fair, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years instead of thirty, but it upheld the conviction itself.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-1543, James Rickey Ezell, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Resisting an Officer, and Public Drunk. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Resisting an Officer and Public Drunk but modified the sentence for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs from seventy years to forty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Ezell was convicted after a jury trial where he faced three charges. The jury decided on tough punishments, including a long 70-year sentence for the drug charge. Ezell argued that his arrest was illegal and that various legal mistakes were made during the trial, including issues with how the jury was selected and his lawyer's performance. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that Ezell's arrest was legal and that the jury selection did not violate his rights. The law under which he was charged for drug trafficking was also upheld as valid. However, the court agreed that his defense lawyer didn't do enough to investigate previous convictions that were used against Ezell during sentencing. Because of this lack of investigation, the court reduced his long sentence for drug trafficking but kept the other convictions intact. In the end, Ezell's hard punishment for drug trafficking was changed, but he still faced serious time for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.
In OCCA case No. RE-1999-1556, an individual appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified it to time served, including the satisfaction of all fines, fees, and costs. No judges dissented.