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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.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.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-662, a fifteen-year-old juvenile appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. One judge dissented. The case started when the State filed a petition claiming that the Appellant committed the act of burglary. A trial was held without a jury, and the court found him guilty. The Appellant then appealed this decision, claiming there were two main problems. First, the Appellant argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed that the State did not show enough evidence for the breaking part of the burglary charge. However, they decided that the evidence was enough for a different crime called Entering a Building with Certain Intent, which is also known as Illegal Entry. Second, the Appellant argued that he did not properly give up his right to a jury trial. The court said this claim was not valid. They found that the Appellant had a lawyer during the trial and he signed a form saying he was okay with not having a jury. There was no evidence that he did not understand this decision or that he was forced into it. In the end, the court modified the original ruling and confirmed that the Appellant was guilty of Illegal Entry instead of Second Degree Burglary. This decision was officially recorded by the court, and they ordered that the correct information be entered into the court records.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-323, David Dean Wichita appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. The case focused on whether Wichita had properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence in the record to show that he understood and agreed to give up this important right. The State agreed that this was a mistake and that the case needed to be looked at again. The judges explained that a person must clearly show they are giving up their right to a jury trial. There was no proof in the record that Wichita made this choice himself or that he did it knowingly and wisely. Because of this error, the judges decided that Wichita should have a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.