In OCCA case No. M-2014-235, Donald Wayne Farino appealed his conviction for Obtaining Cash By False Pretenses and Petit Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and send the case back for a new trial. No one dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence.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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.