New Trial

F-2004-1229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1229, Jesse Allen Cheshire appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Allen Cheshire was found guilty by a jury of two charges of Child Sexual Abuse in a case from Bryan County. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison for each charge, and these sentences would be served one after the other. Cheshire argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed the crimes. He believed that the evidence was inconsistent and didn't clearly show he was guilty. He claimed this meant his constitutional rights were violated. He also stated that his rights were infringed because two witnesses were allowed to share what the alleged victims said without those children testifying in court. According to the law, he should have been able to confront his accusers directly, which he argued did not happen. Cheshire claimed that the state’s witnesses unfairly supported the credibility of the children’s accusations against him. He also mentioned that a letter from a doctor supporting his defense was wrongly kept out of trial, while other evidence was accepted. After looking at all the ideas presented by Cheshire and the details of the case, the court found that the issue regarding hearsay—where the children’s statements were allowed without them being present—was a serious error. They concluded that this error was not harmless and could have affected the outcome of the trial. They noted that there was some confusion during the case, including the children initially naming someone else as the abuser before changing their statements. Because of this significant issue, the court reversed Cheshire's convictions and ordered a new trial to take place.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1229

F-2005-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-97, Dodson appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wesley Dodson was found guilty by a jury in the district court of a serious crime against two victims. The judge sentenced him to serve a long time in prison, with each count requiring him to stay for fifty years. After Dodson's conviction, he appealed the decision, which means he asked a higher court to review the case to see if there were any mistakes. Dodson raised several important points about why he thought the trial was unfair. First, he believed he did not get a fair jury because one juror was biased and should have been removed. Second, he argued that the court allowed hearsay evidence about children that was not presented correctly and could make the jury think the victims were more credible than they were. Third, he claimed that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to prove he committed the crimes. Lastly, Dodson said that all these errors together made the trial unfair. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Dodson on some key points. They found that there was indeed a biased juror who should have been excused, which took away Dodson's right to have a fair trial. They also agreed that the trial court should have been more careful about the hearsay evidence related to the victims, and that a police officer made comments that suggested the victims were telling the truth when that should have been left for the jury to decide. However, the court thought that there was enough evidence to support the victims' claims, meaning the jury could have reasonably found Dodson guilty based on their testimonies. Since the court found serious issues with how the trial was handled, they decided that Dodson's convictions should be reversed, meaning he would not have to serve the prison sentences handed down from the first trial, and they ordered that a new trial should happen. In summary, the higher court said that Dodson did not receive a fair trial due to certain errors, so they cancelled the previous decision and said there should be another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-97

F-2005-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-874, Leroy Mitchell, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Leroy Mitchell, Jr. was found guilty of a serious crime after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but five of those years were suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that time unless he got into trouble again. Mitchell believed there were problems during his trial and decided to appeal. He had several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that some statements made during the trial were unfair because they were hearsay. Hearsay is when someone repeats what another person said rather than saying what they directly experienced. In Mitchell's case, he felt that the way the hearsay was used violated his rights, particularly his right to confront witnesses against him. Also, he claimed that some of the evidence presented in court was unreliable and that he did not have a fair chance to defend himself. He worried that the evidence related to other crimes might have influenced the judge unfairly. Mitchell also said that his lawyer did not perform well during the trial, which led to more problems. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Mitchell's rights were not properly protected during the trial. Specifically, they found that the court allowed too much hearsay without the necessary checks to ensure it was reliable. This made it hard to believe the outcome of the trial was fair. As a result, the court decided to reverse the original judgment and said that Mitchell deserves another trial where these issues can be addressed properly.

Continue ReadingF-2005-874

M 2005-0404

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0404

F 2004-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-866, Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial in two of the three related cases, while affirming the conviction in the third case. One judge dissented. Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for offenses related to shooting at people, which included Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting with Intent to Kill. The jury gave him a total of twelve years for the two Assault and Battery charges and twenty-five years for the shooting charge, which were to be served one after the other. Ricky raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, like not following the law to instruct the jury correctly on the charges. He claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions and that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. He also stated the prosecutor did wrong things during the trial and that some evidence shouldn't have been allowed. Additionally, he felt the instructions given to the jury about sentencing were confusing and that all the mistakes made during the trial added up to make it unfair for him. After looking closely at what Ricky said and the court records, the court agreed that he deserved a new trial for the Assault and Battery charges because the jury was wrongly instructed about the law. But for the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, the court thought the evidence was enough to support that conviction, so they upheld it. The court decided that many of Ricky's claims about mistakes during the trial did not change the outcome for the Shooting charge, so it stayed as is. However, since there was a legal mistake about the Assault and Battery charges, those were thrown out, and he was ordered to be tried again. In conclusion, the final decision was to keep the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and to conduct new trials for the other two charges.

Continue ReadingF 2004-866

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F-2005-700

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

Continue ReadingF-2005-700

F-2005-320

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-320, Duncan appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Duncan was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter in Pushmataha County, and he was sentenced to four years in prison, with the last year suspended. He argued that his trial had several problems that made it unfair, including issues with witness testimony and jury instructions. The main issue in Duncan's appeal was that a doctor’s assistant’s testimony from a preliminary hearing was used at the trial, even though the assistant did not appear in person to be questioned. Duncan claimed this was wrong because he did not get a chance to confront the assistant and ask him questions. The court agreed with Duncan, stating that it is important for a defendant to see and question witnesses in person to ensure a fair trial. The court pointed out that the rules used to allow the assistant's testimony did not apply to criminal trials, and therefore, the testimony should not have been part of the evidence. The absence of this testimony was significant enough that it could have affected the trial's outcome. Because of this error, Duncan's conviction was overturned, and the court ordered a new trial, meaning Duncan will have the chance to defend himself again in court. The court decided not to consider other arguments Duncan made since the first issue was enough to reverse the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-320

F 2005-288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-288, George Luther Carter, III appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Carter was accused of sexually abusing a child and was found guilty by a jury. They decided he should spend thirty years in prison for this crime. After the trial, Carter appealed, arguing that the trial court made several mistakes. Carter's main reasons for appealing included that the court should not have allowed evidence of other alleged crimes he had committed, and that the use of a videotape during the trial was not fair. He also believed the verdict was not supported well by the evidence. The court looked closely at these points and decided that admitting the evidence of the other alleged crime was a mistake. The evidence did not clearly connect to the case at hand and could have unfairly influenced the jury's decision. Since the court was not sure that this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial, they decided to grant Carter a new trial. In summary, Carter’s conviction was reversed because the trial court allowed improper evidence that could have affected the jury's verdict. The remaining arguments did not need to be discussed since the first point was enough for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2005-288

F-2005-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-363, Adan Ramos, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force or Fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Ramos's right to a jury trial, which is a fundamental right. Ramos's other claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, exclusion of evidence, and interpreter issues became moot since the court ordered a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-363

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

F-2004-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

Continue ReadingF-2004-649

F-2005-619

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-619

F-2004-1266

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1266, Darrell W. Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hogan's conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Hogan was found guilty of killing his cellmate, James Wise, at the prison. On the morning of February 24, 2004, Wise had threatened Hogan with a knife. Later, Hogan killed Wise by choking him with a laundry bag drawstring and then called for help, but Wise died weeks afterward. Hogan confessed to the crime when investigators spoke with him. During his trial, Hogan was supposed to have nine chances to dismiss potential jurors, known as peremptory challenges, but he was only allowed five. He argued that this was unfair and violated his rights. The court agreed with Hogan's argument, stating that denying him the proper number of peremptory challenges was a serious mistake. They ruled that he deserved a new trial where he would have all his legal rights. The dissenting judge felt that the mistake was not harmful and that Hogan did not prove he was disadvantaged by the limited number of challenges, and therefore, the trial's outcome should have been upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1266

F-2004-688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-688, Arthur Gerald Graves appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial with effective counsel. One judge dissented. Graves was convicted after a non-jury trial where he was found to have drugs in his possession. The police had noticed a lot of people going in and out of a hotel room and decided to investigate. When the police knocked on the door and were let in, Graves showed up with a bag in his hand. This made the officers suspicious. They arrested him and found drugs and cash on him. Graves claimed that the police did not have a good reason to search him or arrest him. He argued he was just carrying his keys when he knocked on the door. However, the trial court did not agree with him and allowed the evidence found to be used against him in court. During the appeal, Graves's main argument was that he did not receive good help from his lawyers. The court found that his lawyers did not do their job well, which affected the trial's outcome. They had three different attorneys, and their lack of teamwork hurt his defense. The judges noted that the defense lawyers failed to present important evidence that could have helped Graves and that they made some arguments that did not relate to the case. The court stated that the mistakes made by Graves's lawyers made it hard to trust the trial's results. Because of this, they decided that Graves deserved another chance to have a proper trial with the right legal help. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-688

F-2004-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2004-410

F 2004-773

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.

Continue ReadingF 2004-773

F-2004-1112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1112

F-2004-1065

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1065, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible oral sodomy, and exhibiting pornography to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case was tried in a district court where the appellant was found guilty on several charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. During the trial, there were issues related to expert testimony, jury instructions, and statements made by the prosecutor that the appellant argued denied him a fair trial. One problematic aspect involved a child welfare worker who said that the victim was truthful, which the court found to be inappropriate. Additionally, the trial court didn't give an important jury instruction that the appellant requested regarding inconsistent statements made by the victim, which could have helped his defense. The prosecutor also made statements that could have influenced the jury unfairly, such as referring to the appellant as a monster. Because of these and other errors combined, the court concluded that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. As a result, the court ordered a new trial to ensure justice was served.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1065

F-2004-197

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-197, McNeil appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. McNeil was convicted by a jury for three counts: possession of methamphetamine, resisting an officer, and speeding. The judge sentenced him to two years in prison for the drug charge and imposed fines and jail time for the other charges. McNeil believed he did not get a fair trial for several reasons. Firstly, he argued that the jury heard about other crimes that did not relate to the current case, which might have made them think he was a worse person than he actually is. Secondly, he claimed that a police officer made comments during the trial that unfairly influenced the jury against him. In reviewing the case, the court found that one of the officer’s comments was particularly damaging and could have influenced the jury's decision. The judge's warnings to the jury did not fix the problem, and since the evidence against McNeil was not strong, it was decided he deserved a new trial. Because the appeal was successful based on these issues, the court did not need to discuss the other points McNeil raised about his trial. The outcome was that McNeil's conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial where he could have another chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2004-197

M-2004-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingM-2004-66

F-2004-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-198

F-2003-772

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-772, Amy Marie Flippence appealed her conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some charges but reversed one conviction for possession of a precursor and also reversed the child endangerment convictions, ordering them to be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2003-772

F-2003-633

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.

Continue ReadingF-2003-633

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196