Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7102(A)(1) Archives

F 2005-569

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 19, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-569, Anthony Logan Merrick appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes involving minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of Merrick's convictions but reversed and dismissed certain specific counts. One judge disagreed with part of the decision. Merrick was tried and found guilty of 21 counts of sexual abuse of a child, 2 counts of sexual exploitation of a child, 15 counts of possession of obscene material involving minors, 4 counts of first-degree rape by instrumentation, and 8 counts of indecent or lewd acts with a minor child under sixteen. He received two life sentences and additional time for the other charges, which would run together, but separately from some other counts. Merrick raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the search warrant used to gather evidence was not valid because it did not show enough probable cause, and therefore, the evidence collected should not have been allowed in court. The court disagreed and explained that the affidavit (the document that supported the search) did provide a reasonable basis for the warrant. They determined that there was enough evidence to suggest a crime had taken place and that the search was lawful. He also claimed the warrant was not detailed enough in specifying what items could be seized. The court found that the warrant was correctly written to allow officers to identify the items they needed to seize. Merrick's next point was about double punishment. He argued he should not be punished for both the act of lewd molestation and the possession of related images, saying it was unfair. However, the court concluded that these were separate crimes, and thus he could be punished for both. Merrick also believed he should only be charged once for a large number of images found, but the court stated that there were indeed separate counts for each type of evidence that were introduced. Lastly, Merrick claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which hurt his case. The court said there wasn't enough evidence to show that he was harmed by his lawyer's performance. As a result, the court upheld the majority of the convictions while reversing some counts related to possession of images, ordering them to be dismissed.

C-2003-890

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-890, Saul Perez appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from eighteen years to ten years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Saul Perez pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Neglect, which means he was accused of not taking care of a child properly. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Shortly after, Perez asked to take back his guilty plea, saying he shouldn’t have to accept the charge. He had several reasons why he believed the court should let him withdraw his guilty plea. First, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence showing he was responsible for the child's neglect. Second, he thought he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, so it wasn't a voluntary choice. Third, he said his punishment was too harsh, especially since he felt he hadn’t had a duty to care for the child, and the neglect wasn’t intentional. Lastly, he claimed he didn’t have a proper interpreter during an important meeting about his plea, which he believed violated his rights. The court reviewed all the facts and found that two of his reasons were valid enough to change his punishment. They determined that there was some confusion in the case about whether he truly understood the crime he was admitting to. They discussed what “neglect” meant and explained that the law is meant to hold responsible individuals accountable for a child's safety and care. Ultimately, while the court did not consider some of the reasons Perez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea, they agreed that his punishment was too severe based on the situation. Therefore, they reduced his sentence to ten years in prison instead of the original eighteen. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that without proving that Perez had a duty to care for the child, he should not be seen as guilty of a crime. This dissent meant that there was a difference of opinion among the judges regarding the case.