Motion to Revoke Archives

RE-2020-398

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 21, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.

RE-2019-522

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2020
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-522, Leslie Ford appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentences in both cases but also instructed the lower court to correct a written order error regarding the duration of the revocation. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Ford had previously been sentenced in two cases for stalking, with each sentence being five years long but suspended, meaning he would not have to go to prison if he followed certain rules. However, he was accused of breaking these rules. The state said he didn’t pay the required fees, didn’t go to treatment for domestic abusers, drank alcohol, and even got in trouble for more offenses. At a hearing, the judge found that Leslie did indeed break the rules, leading to the full revocation of his sentences. Leslie then appealed the decision, bringing up several reasons why he thought the revocation was unfair. He argued about his mental fitness during the process and claimed there were time limit violations concerning the hearings. The court explained that they could only focus on whether the revocation was valid and that the evidence showed he broke the rules. They also found that a confusion on how long he was sentenced was a mistake, which they ordered to be fixed. Overall, Leslie did not manage to successfully argue for the reversal of his revocation, except for the correction regarding the error in the time of imprisonment mentioned in the written order.

RE-2019-155

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 13, 2020
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MICHELLE MARIE MESPLAY,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2019-155** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA FEB 13 2020 **JOHN D. HADDEN** CLERK --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Michelle Marie Mesplay appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134. On October 2, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Child Neglect under 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C). The trial court accepted her plea, withheld a finding of guilt, and delayed proceedings for ten years. On December 23, 2016, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment, to which Appellant stipulated. The court then accelerated her deferred sentence to a conviction, sentencing her to ten years imprisonment with all ten years suspended. On May 3, 2018, the State moved to revoke the suspended sentence, citing failures to pay supervision fees and court costs, continued methamphetamine use, repeated failures to report, and unknown whereabouts. Appellant stipulated to the motion, and the Honorable Robert Haney revoked seven and a half years of her remaining ten-year suspended sentence. Appellant contends this revocation was excessive and claims an abuse of discretion regarding the length of the revocation. The court's decision to revoke is grounded in the understanding that a suspended sentence is a matter of grace (Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147). The State must demonstrate only one violation of probation to revoke a suspended sentence in full (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557). In this case, Appellant’s stipulation to violating the terms of her suspended sentence validates the trial court’s revocation decision. The trial court’s discretion in revocations remains crucial, and disturbances to this discretion are reserved for clear abuse (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). Evidence presented to justify the revocation aligned with statutory requirements (22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(A)), and Appellant has not substantiated any claim of abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2015-134 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** **ANDREW MELOY** – Counsel for Defendant **MARK HOOVER** – Counsel for Appellant **ROGER HUGHES**, **MIKE HUNTER** – Counsel for Appellee **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR --- For the complete opinion in PDF format, [click here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2019-155_1734334834-1.pdf).

RE-2019-57

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 30, 2020
Post category:RE

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Toni Lynn Cook appeals the revocation of her suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court. Cook had originally pled guilty to the charge of Obstructing an Officer. Following her guilty plea, the State filed a Motion to Revoke her suspended sentence, claiming she committed new crimes while on probation, which included multiple counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Indecent Exposure. The revocation hearing saw evidence presented, including testimonies from jailers detailing that Cook had exposed herself and physically resisted their attempts to move her to a solitary cell, leading to injuries to the officers involved. The trial court found that the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cook had violated her probation. Cook raised several propositions on appeal: 1. **Insufficient Evidence**: Cook argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged probation violations. However, the court found that the evidence sufficient and credible, affirming that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. 2. **Waiver of Hearing Within Twenty Days**: Cook contended that her waiver of the right to a hearing within twenty days was not valid. The court ruled that Cook had waived this right knowingly, as she had not requested an early hearing and did not provide evidence that she was unaware of this right. 3. **Excessiveness of Revocation**: Cook argued the revocation was excessive. The court noted that revocation is a matter of grace, and since Cook committed multiple new offenses while on probation, the trial judge's decision to revoke her sentence in full was not an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Cook's suspended sentence, finding no merit in her claims. The mandate was ordered to be issued upon filing the decision.

RE-2018-1236

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Richard James Nunes, Appellant,** **-VS-** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **Case No. RE-2018-1236** **SUMMARY OPINION** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant, Richard James Nunes, appeals from the revocation of his eight-year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2014-450 by the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, in the District Court of Seminole County. **Background:** On March 12, 2015, Nunes entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (felony) and Altering License Plate/Decal (misdemeanor). He was sentenced to ten years on the felony, with the first two years to be served and the remainder suspended, and one year on the misdemeanor to be served concurrently. On December 27, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunes' suspended sentence, alleging probation violations. An initial appearance occurred on January 23, 2018, followed by the appointment of counsel on February 2, 2018. Nunes was released on bond on February 8, 2018 but failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on February 15, 2018. A hearing was ultimately held on November 26, 2018, where the probation officer testified that Nunes never reported after his release and was considered an absconder. Despite Nunes' testimony providing varying explanations for his actions, Judge Butner concluded that he violated probation and revoked the suspended sentence in full. **Proposition of Error:** Nunes asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence because the revocation hearing was not timely. **Analysis:** According to 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b(A), a revocation hearing must be held within twenty days following a plea of not guilty to the motion to revoke, unless waived. Nunes contends he never entered a plea and thus the hearing was untimely. However, as acknowledged by the State and Nunes himself, he never formally entered a plea of not guilty, meaning the twenty-day timeframe was never initiated. Moreover, the delay in the revocation hearing was primarily due to Nunes absconding and not fulfilling his responsibilities, further complicating the matter. **Decision:** The order of the District Court of Seminole County revoking Nunes' eight-year suspended sentence is therefore AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.** **CONCUR: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J. (CONCUR IN RESULTS); LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.** --- For the full decision document, please visit the following link: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-1236_1734353731.pdf)

F-2018-0851

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2019
Post category:F

**In The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Keye Yarnell Smith,** Appellant, **v.** **The State of Oklahoma,** Appellee. **No. F-2018-0851** **Filed August 15, 2019** **Summary Opinion** **Presiding Judge Lewis:** On December 23, 2014, Keye Yarnell Smith was charged in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405 with: - Count 1: Possession of Controlled Drug (felony) - Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (misdemeanor) - Count 3: Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) Smith pled guilty to all counts on August 26, 2015. Sentencing was deferred until August 17, 2018, pending successful completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court program, which would result in a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1, with Counts 2 and 3 dismissed. If terminated from the program, he would face six years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. On July 5, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court, citing violations of program rules. After a hearing, Special Judge April Seibert ordered Smith's termination from the program and sentenced him per the plea agreement. Smith appeals this decision, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. On appeal, Smith argues the court lacked adequate information due to the absence of the Performance Contract and Rules of Drug Court in the record. However, evidence provided during the hearing demonstrated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Oklahoma Statute Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) outlines that drug court judges must recognize relapses and provide progressive sanctions, rather than automatic termination, unless the offender's conduct warrants such action. The judge has broad authority over program removal decisions as outlined in § 471.7(G). This Court reviews the lower court’s decisions for abuse of discretion, which requires Smith to show that the court reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. No objections were raised by Smith regarding the allegations or the lack of understanding of the program's rules. **Decision:** The Court affirms the State’s Motion to Revoke Smith’s participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405. The mandate will be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **Appearances:** - **Counsel for Appellant:** Stephanie Singer - **Counsel for Appellee:** Cindy Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney - **Attorney General:** Mike Hunter, Sher M. Johnson **Opinion By:** Presiding Judge Lewis **Concurred by:** Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, Judge Hudson, Judge Rowland. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-0851_1735123379.pdf)

RE-2018-234

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERRY WAYNE LANDS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-234** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:** On March 7, 2008, Appellant Jerry Wayne Lands, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) After Former Conviction of a Felony in Pittsburg County Case No. CF-2007-420. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Between May 2008 and March 2009, at least five (5) applications to revoke his probation were filed. On December 5, 2008, Lands was charged with additional offenses and ultimately, on April 13, 2009, the district court revoked five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2007-420. Subsequent to Lands' guilty plea in Case No. CF-2008-526, where he received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended, the State filed multiple revocation applications in both cases. On October 26, 2017, the State filed another Application to Revoke Lands' suspended sentences, which culminated in a full revocation during a hearing held on July 11, 2017. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR:** 1. Lands contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance for him to hire counsel. 2. He argues there was no valid waiver of the twenty-day requirement, resulting in loss of jurisdiction to revoke his sentence. 3. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the revocation motions. 4. He asserts the revocation of his entire remaining sentences was excessive. **DECISION:** 1. **Continuance Denial:** The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Hogan in denying the requested continuance, which was sought on the day of the hearing without prior notification of intent to hire private counsel. 2. **Waiver of the 20-Day Rule:** The waiver was valid despite Lands' claim that it was made without the representation of counsel, as the appellate record indicated he knowingly waived his right to a timely hearing. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to warrant revocation of Lands' suspended sentences. Violations of probation can be established by a preponderance of evidence, and the record supported the trial court's findings. 4. **Excessiveness of Revocation:** The court concluded that revocation of Lands' entire suspended sentences was not excessive, given his extensive history of probation violations. **RULING:** The order of the District Court of Pittsburg County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **COUNSEL:** *Appellant:* Wesley J. Cherry *Appellee:* Max E. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. *LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR* *LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *HUDSON, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR* **MANDATE ORDERED.** For a complete view and reference, [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-234_1734698244.pdf).

RE-2015-206

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 5, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-206, Akers appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary II, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order against him. One judge dissented. In this case, Akers had entered pleas of no contest to several charges after a plea agreement. He was sentenced to serve time in prison, but part of his sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it right away if he followed certain rules. However, a few months later, a judge revoked part of his suspended sentence because of a violation. Akers argued that the court did not follow the rules properly during the revocation process. Specifically, he claimed that the court didn’t hold a required hearing within 20 days after he entered a plea of not guilty to the motion for revocation. According to the law, if this time frame is not followed, the court loses the authority to revoke the suspended sentence. The record showed that the state filed a motion to revoke Akers' suspended sentence, and although he entered a plea of not guilty, he did not receive a hearing within the 20-day period. Akers' lawyer pointed out this issue during the hearing, claiming the court should not have moved forward with the revocation as it did not meet the required timeframe. The dissenting judge had a different opinion, but the majority agreed that Akers was right. Because the required hearing was not held on time, they decided to reverse the revocation order and told the lower court to dismiss the state’s motion, meaning Akers’ rights were upheld, and he would not face the consequences of the revocation. Thus, the decision was made to give Akers another chance by reversing the revocation.

RE-2013-848

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.

RE-2013-939

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 23, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-939, Quinton Blake Richardson appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that revoked a part of his suspended sentence based on a conflict of interest involving his attorney. One judge dissented. Mr. Richardson had originally entered a guilty plea to stealing items worth over $500 from a Wal-Mart and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment, which was suspended under probation. However, he later faced a motion to revoke his suspended sentence. This motion claimed he violated his probation with new charges in Kansas for threatening and hitting a person, as well as failing drug tests. During the revocation hearing, Mr. Richardson's attorney had previously represented the victim in his case, which created a conflict of interest. The victim testified against Mr. Richardson, and the court judged that this situation affected how well Mr. Richardson was defended. The court emphasized that if a lawyer has a conflict of interest that harms their representation, the defendant may have their case overturned. Therefore, since the court believed Mr. Richardson did not get the fair help he needed because of the attorney's former relationship with the victim, they decided to reverse the revocation of his sentence and sent the case back for further proceedings. Additionally, the court found that other issues raised by Mr. Richardson about paperwork errors were not necessary to address further because of the main reversal decision. Overall, this case highlighted the importance of fair legal representation and how conflicts of interest can lead to wrong decisions in court.

RE-2013-635

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-635, Bradberry appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended life sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the full revocation and modify it to a ten-year revocation instead. One judge dissented. Bradberry was given suspended life sentences for failing to register as a sex offender and living near a school. He was on probation for less than two weeks when the state accused him of not reporting to his probation officer and not providing proof of employment or treatment. The trial judge decided to revoke his sentences completely due to these violations. Bradberry argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking his sentences in full, claiming it was excessive. The appeals court agreed that the judge abused his discretion, especially since many of Bradberry’s previous issues happened before his new sentencing. They found that the most significant reason for the revocation was his failure to report, which they believed did not warrant a full revocation. In the end, the appeal court decided that Bradberry’s suspended sentences should be modified. Instead of serving a life sentence, he would have to serve ten years of his suspended time. One judge disagreed with this decision and believed the full revocation was justified because Bradberry had not met his probation requirements.

RE-2013-250

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.

RE-2009-655

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2011
Post category:RE

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.

RE-2009-239

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.

RE-2008-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-599, Betty Sue Black appealed her conviction for obtaining cash by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Betty Sue Black was sentenced to ten years in prison for her crime, but she only had to serve one year in jail if she followed the rules of her probation. She was also required to pay a fine and make restitution, which means she had to pay back money she owed. After being released from jail, her first payment was due in January 2008. However, in January, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke her probation, claiming she had failed to make her restitution payment. A hearing was held, where it was found that she was unable to pay because of her financial situation. She had disabilities that affected her ability to get a job, and she lived with her sick daughter. There was no proof that she could pay the $200 she owed at that time. The court found that the only issue was her failure to pay the restitution, and they agreed that this was not a good reason for revoking her probation since she couldn't pay. They ruled that it was not fair to revoke her for something she could not control. The appellate court decided to reverse the revocation order and directed that the motion to revoke her probation be dismissed because they felt that the trial court had made a mistake in the decision. The dissenting judge believed that the trial court had not made an error and felt that the judge should be trusted to make these decisions based on what he heard and saw during the hearings.

F-2008-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-963, Richard Lloyd VanMeter appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor-Second Offense and multiple new charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the DUI/Drug Court Program and vacate his convictions, instructing to reinstate him in the program based on the conditions of his plea agreement. One judge dissented.

F-2007-636

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.

C-2007-743

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence from the District Court in Case No. CF-2004-31 and remand it back for further proceedings, specifically to determine the unserved portion of Long's sentence. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in CF-2006-90, which was for Burglary in the Second Degree. The court clarified that a prior felony conviction enhanced Long's sentence for the burglary conviction. One member of the court dissented.

RE-2006-135

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

RE-2004-614

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 22, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.

RE 2001-1070

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.

RE 2000-1170

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.

O-98-461

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 1999
Post category:O

In OCCA case No. O-98-461, Johnnie Edward Romo appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership and Embezzlement by Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order and judgment that revoked his suspended sentences. No justices dissented. Johnnie Romo had originally pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence for his crimes. However, the state later sought to revoke this suspended sentence after he did not comply with the rules of probation. The appeal focused on two main points: first, that the state took too long to act on the motion to revoke his sentence, and second, that there was a promise made regarding reducing sentences if he admitted to the allegations. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the state did not act quickly enough and allowed Romo's suspended sentences to expire without bringing him to court in a timely manner. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke the sentences and instructed that the case be dismissed.