In OCCA case No. F-2017-1230, Oleithia June Cudjo appealed her conviction for second degree murder while in the commission of felony driving under the influence, driving while privileged suspended, and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1042, Vincent Ray Perosi appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. The case began when Perosi, who had recently divorced, was ordered to leave the house he had been living in by January 1, 2016. After that date, his ex-wife, Pamela Perosi, returned to the house with two friends to change the locks because he had not moved out. This led to a confrontation. Perosi shot and killed Pamela and another friend, Buddy Weber, while wounding Karen Priest, who was also present. Perosi claimed he shot in self-defense, saying he was scared of Weber. However, evidence showed that he had a history of threats against his ex-wife and evidence contradicted his version of events. The court ruled that he did not qualify for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and denied his request for related jury instructions. In reviewing the evidence, the court found sufficient proof to support the convictions, rejecting Perosi's claims of self-defense and that shooting Pamela was accidental. Further, his videotaped confession was admitted as evidence, despite defense claims it was coerced; the court found it was voluntary. In addition, the court allowed testimony about Perosi's bad character and a victim impact statement from Pamela’s family. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial’s decisions and affirmed the conviction, denying any errors raised in the appeal.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1231, Antonio Tiwan Taylor appealed his conviction for two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Antonio Tiwan Taylor was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma for harming his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter in December 2014. The girl talked about what happened to her, and the State also shared letters that Taylor wrote to the child's mother where he seemed to admit his actions and apologize. Furthermore, a young woman testified that Taylor had raped her before, which was included to show his tendency to commit such acts. Taylor appealed his conviction on several points. First, he argued the trial court should not have allowed the woman’s testimony, claiming it was more harmful than helpful to his case. The court reviewed this claim and found no error in allowing her testimony; they saw it as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial to Taylor. Second, during the trial, the woman who made the earlier accusation did not show up, and Taylor argued that her absence meant her prior testimony shouldn’t be used. The court decided she was unavailable and allowed her earlier testimony to be read to the jury. Taylor disagreed but the court believed the State made enough effort to locate her, and they maintained that her previous testimony was still valid and credible. Next, Taylor made a claim based on collateral estoppel. This is a legal principle that says if someone was found not guilty of a crime, they shouldn’t be tried again for the same issue. Taylor believed that because he was acquitted of raping the woman in question, her testimony should not have been used against him in this case. However, the court explained that an acquittal does not mean the person is innocent but that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt. Thus, they could still consider the facts of the earlier case for a different purpose. Lastly, Taylor argued that even if the trial had a few errors, they added up to a reason for a new trial. Since the court found no errors in the previous claims, this argument was also denied. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions made during the trial, meaning Taylor's convictions and sentences remained in place.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-532, Shane Allen Vanderpool appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Vanderpool shot and killed Blaine Wells in an incident that was determined to be a case of mistaken identity following an encounter at an intersection in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Vanderpool did not know Wells, and the circumstances of the shooting involved a misunderstanding about the identities of the people involved. Vanderpool was later connected to the crime through evidence that included phone records and testimonies that linked him to the location of the shooting. Witnesses to the shooting were able to identify Vanderpool as the shooter, and forensic evidence further implicated him. Vanderpool was charged with First Degree Murder and other related offenses, ultimately leading to a conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder charge. During the appeal, Vanderpool raised several issues regarding the trial court's admission of evidence relating to his character and gang affiliations. He claimed that such evidence denied him a fair trial. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was closely connected to the events of the shooting. Vanderpool also challenged certain photographic evidence presented at trial, arguing it was prejudicial and lacked relevance. The court, however, concluded that these photographs had significant probative value and did not substantially outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. Another argument Vanderpool made was about the unconstitutionality of a statute regarding the sentencing of noncapital murder defendants, which he felt limited his ability to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. The court held that the statute was constitutional and provided due process protections. Furthermore, Vanderpool contended that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain objections during trial. The court noted that his counsel's performance did not result in prejudice that would impact the trial's outcome; therefore, this claim was also denied. Finally, Vanderpool argued that the cumulative effect of errors during his trial denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that as they found no substantial errors, this claim also failed. In conclusion, the court affirmed Vanderpool's convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The opinions aligned with the decisions made regarding the evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. One judge expressed a differing view but ultimately the majority ruled in favor of upholding the lower court's decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1030, Polo Carrillo appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Polo Carrillo was found guilty on several serious charges and sentenced to life imprisonment on three charges, with an additional year on the domestic assault charge. He raised several arguments on appeal, including issues with the evidence presented during his trial and concerns about whether he received a fair trial. One point of contention was the trial court's decision to allow a nurse to read a report during the trial that included what the victim had stated about the incident. Carrillo argued that this was hearsay and unnecessary since there was other testimony about the same information. The court determined that the nurse's statements were allowed because they related to medical treatment, which is an exception to hearsay rules. Another argument Carrillo made was about the court's ruling regarding the disclosure of certain witnesses' information. The trial court had allowed the victim's address to be withheld for safety reasons. The court pointed out that Carrillo was able to communicate with the victim without knowing her home address. Thus, the court concluded that the ruling did not harm his defense. Carrillo also claimed that photographs shown to the jury were redundant and biased against him, but the court found that these images were important in showing the victim's injuries and supported the testimony, so they were allowed. Further, Carrillo argued that the jury was not given the correct instructions regarding post-imprisonment supervision. The court indicated that the instructions given were generally proper since the jury couldn't recommend a sentence lower than two years, ruling that errors were not affecting the trial's outcome. At sentencing, there was an error in how Carrillo's time served was recorded. However, this was later corrected by the District Attorney’s office, making this issue no longer relevant. Finally, Carrillo claimed that even if individual errors in the trial did not deserve a new trial, the cumulative effect of these errors should. The court disagreed, stating that since there were no errors that warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim also failed. In summary, the court affirmed Carrillo's convictions, indicating that he did not suffer an unfair trial despite the various arguments he raised on appeal. The decision was backed by careful consideration of the law and the facts presented during the trial.
In OCCA case No. S-2017-986, Simms appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling to exclude certain evidence. One judge dissented. The case involved Simms being charged with two counts of First Degree Murder. Before the trial started, he asked the court to keep out certain video and photographs from the trial. He felt these images were too gruesome and could unfairly influence the jury against him. The judge held a hearing to discuss this issue. During the hearing, the judge decided to exclude the officer’s body camera video, which showed the crime scene where one of the victims was struggling for her life. The judge felt the video was unnecessarily graphic and did not provide any new important information that could not be shown in a different, less disturbing way. The State of Oklahoma disagreed with this decision and appealed, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the video to be shown in court. However, after reviewing the case, the court upheld the trial judge's decision. They concluded that there was no misuse of discretion when the judge decided to keep the video out, as it could be too disturbing for the jury and did not add significant information to the case. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, meaning that Simms' conviction stood as initially determined. The judges also noted that one judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority agreed with the ruling to keep the gruesome video out of the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-393, Tucker Ryan McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence of life without the possibility of parole and remanded the matter for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic disappearance of 16-year-old JaRay Wilson, who went missing in October 2012. Investigators later connected Tucker McGee and his friend Cody Godfrey to JaRay's disappearance. Evidence presented during the trial showed that McGee, while under the influence of drugs, shot JaRay in the head and subsequently helped dispose of her body. Throughout the trial, McGee raised numerous issues regarding jury instructions and the fairness of his trial, arguing that certain instructions on lesser offenses were improperly given or omitted, that the jury was misled by a flight instruction, and that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the evidence presented against him. He also claimed that the prosecution engaged in misconduct and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by McGee and found that while certain instructions were given that could be considered errors, they did not ultimately affect the outcome of the trial. The strengths of the evidence against McGee, including his confessions and the testimony of witnesses, led the court to determine that the errors did not warrant reversal of his conviction. Importantly, the court also addressed the implications of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on juvenile sentencing, specifically those related to life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. The court acknowledged that the previous standards did not adequately consider the unique circumstances surrounding juvenile offenders and determined that McGee's sentence required re-evaluation under updated legal interpretations regarding the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. As a result, while McGee's conviction was upheld, his life sentence without the possibility of parole was vacated, allowing for the opportunity for re-sentencing that would take into account his age and circumstances at the time of the crime.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-830, Cody Wayne Mayfield appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and failure to stop at a red light. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Count 2 and remand with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming the other counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Mayfield being found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance and one count of failure to stop at a red light. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and ten days in jail for the traffic violation. Mayfield raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that being convicted for two types of possession from the same incident violated double jeopardy rules, which protect against being punished twice for the same crime. He also argued that certain evidence presented in court, including information about his past crimes and a photograph of a piece of cellophane, was not relevant and unfairly biased the jury. The court found that the first count of possession was improperly charged alongside the second due to double jeopardy, so they reversed the second charge. However, in relation to the other arguments, the court decided that the admission of the pen packet evidence and the photograph did not greatly affect the trial's outcome. The court also ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Mayfield to claim that he wasn't connected to the drugs found in the area. Additionally, Mayfield's complaints about his lawyer's performance did not lead to a different outcome, as the court found the defense wasn't significantly lacking. Finally, the court noted that Mayfield’s life sentence was appropriate and consistent with the law because of his past criminal record. Most of Mayfield's arguments were rejected, leading to the final decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-336, Deandre Bethel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Robbery with a Firearm, Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, and Public Intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Felony Murder and the other charges except for Robbery with a Firearm, which was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Bethel was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County for crimes related to the death of a victim during a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for murder, along with additional sentences for the other charges. During the appeal, Bethel raised several issues, arguing that there was not enough evidence for his convictions, that he should not be punished for both murder and robbery based on the same incident, and that he did not receive a fair trial for various reasons, including how the jury was instructed and what evidence was allowed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of murder and upheld that conviction. However, they agreed that having separate convictions for robbery and murder from the same act violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, so they reversed the robbery conviction. Bethel also argued that the trial court made errors in not instructing the jury about lesser offenses and in handling jury questions, but the court found these claims did not warrant a new trial. Other claims, such as the admission of jail phone calls and victim impact statements, were also rejected. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for murder and the other charges, but dismissed the robbery charge, allowing Bethel to focus his appeal on the correct aspects of his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-11, James Earl Darton appealed his conviction for first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and domestic assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Darton's convictions and sentences while modifying the sentence for the domestic assault and battery charge. One judge dissented. Darton was found guilty of killing Kimberly Ragland, who was found shot in her car. Prior to her death, Ragland had a tumultuous relationship with Darton, which included a previous altercation that led her to seek a protective order against him. This protective order prohibited Darton from being near her, which he violated on the night of the murder. On that night, after a fight where Darton hit Ragland and used a stun gun on her, she was later taken away by Darton, where her murder occurred. Darton was arrested and claimed he had left with a different person. The jury found him guilty based on evidence presented during the trial, including his motive for killing Ragland due to financial loss from the protective order. In his appeal, Darton raised several issues. First, he argued that the sentence for domestic assault was improperly increased based on a law that was not applicable at the time of his offense. The court agreed that this was indeed an error and reduced his sentence for that charge. He also claimed evidence of his drug dealing should not have been allowed during the trial. However, the court found that this evidence was relevant to show Darton’s motive to murder Ragland since her protective order affected his ability to sell drugs. Lastly, Darton asserted that he did not have competent legal representation during his trial. The court reviewed his claims about his lawyer’s performance and ultimately decided that his attorney’s actions were part of a reasonable strategy and did not significantly harm Darton's case. Overall, the court affirmed most of the lower court's judgments but corrected the sentence related to the domestic assault charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-525, Sparks appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, and Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Counts 2 and 3 but reversed and remanded Count 1, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding Count 1. The case involved Nathan David Sparks, who was tried and found guilty in Osage County. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison for Second Degree Murder, along with a fine for delivering a controlled substance and a year in county jail for improperly handling a dead body. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendations. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether there was enough evidence to support a conviction for Second Degree Murder. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Sparks gave methamphetamine to a woman who later died from it, claiming they had a close relationship and that he knew about her health issues. Sparks argued that the evidence did not strongly support the idea that his actions were extremely dangerous. The court reviewed prior cases and determined that not every case of delivering drugs resulting in death is automatically Second Degree Murder. They explained that for a murder charge to stick, the actions must show a clear disregard for life. They found that in Sparks' case, while he knew the victim had health problems, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his actions were dangerously reckless enough to warrant a murder conviction. Each of Sparks' other issues was also reviewed. They found some testimony was not directly related to the case, but since the evidence for Counts 2 and 3 was strong, it did not change the outcome. They determined that there was no misconduct during the trial and that Sparks had adequate legal representation. In summary, the court upheld Sparks' convictions for the drug delivery and body removal but did not find strong enough evidence for the murder charge, leading to its dismissal. One judge disagreed, believing the evidence was sufficient to uphold the murder charge due to Sparks' knowledge of the victim's health issues.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-614, John Wesley Revard appealed his conviction for Robbery With A Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify Appellant's sentence to thirty (30) years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Revard was found guilty by a jury for using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. The jury decided he should spend 40 years in prison, but his appeal led to a change that reduced his sentence to 30 years. Revard claimed several mistakes were made during his trial. He argued that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider a less serious charge of robbery. The court found that there was not enough evidence to support the lesser charge, so they did not agree with that argument. He also said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial and that it made the trial unfair. However, the court looked at everything and concluded that while there may have been some questionable remarks, they did not harm the fairness of his trial. Revard pointed out that the court allowed evidence of other crimes that he was not being tried for, claiming it unfairly affected his case. The court agreed that some of this evidence was not relevant but believed it did not change the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Revard claimed that certain references to probation during the sentencing phase were not proper and prejudiced the jury against him. The court found that these references did affect his rights and decided that this was a significant enough mistake to change his sentence. Lastly, Revard argued that his lawyer did not perform well enough to help him during the trial. The court determined that even with these claims, he did not provide enough evidence to show that he would have won if his lawyer had done a better job. In conclusion, the court confirmed his conviction but reduced his prison term from 40 to 30 years based on the issues presented during the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-407, Thomas Ray Young appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Young was found guilty of sexually abusing his daughter and was sentenced to four life terms in prison, which the jury recommended to be served one after the other. Young raised several issues in his appeal, including claims that the trial court made errors by allowing certain evidence, giving confusing jury instructions, allowing expert testimony that supported the complainant's credibility, and examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, Young argued that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. The court carefully assessed the evidence admitted during the trial. Young contested evidence about past physical abuse towards his daughter and son, as well as a 1979 sexual assault against a teenager. The court found that references to the past abuse of the daughter were relevant to understand why she may have been hesitant to report the sexual abuse. The mention of his son was seen as proper because it challenged the credibility of a defense witness. However, evidence regarding the 1979 sexual assault had minimal relevance and could have been too prejudicial. Regarding jury instructions, the court found the trial judge's instructions were tailored to the evidence, even though they were not standard. The court decided that these instructions did not create errors. The expert witnesses presented by the state were seen as helpful rather than harmful to the case; they did not improperly support the credibility of the complainant. The court ruled that most of the prosecutor's comments during trial did not warrant a problem, except for some details about Young's criminal past, which could have unfairly influenced the jury. The court believed that the modification of Young's sentences to run concurrently addressed any potential unfairness. In summary, the court affirmed Young's conviction but changed his sentences to be served at the same time instead of one after another.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1133, Jona Ann Montgomery appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Second Degree Murder and affirmed the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. One judge dissented. Jona Ann Montgomery was tried in Pittsburg County for her involvement in a tragic incident where she hit two children with her car while speeding near a crowded football game. The younger child, a ten-year-old girl, unfortunately died, while her brother survived. After the accident, Montgomery left the scene but left behind her belongings in the car. The main issue in Montgomery's appeal was the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the possibility of a lesser charge known as Misdemeanor Manslaughter. Initially, the law at the time of Montgomery's trial did not permit this instruction, and her attorney argued against it. However, shortly after the trial, a higher court changed its stance on this law, ruling that driving while impaired could indeed be used for a Misdemeanor Manslaughter charge. Montgomery argued that she should receive a new trial based on this new rule. The court reviewed the situation and agreed that the trial court had made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider this lesser charge. They believed that a fair jury could have potentially found Montgomery guilty of Misdemeanor Manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, given the circumstances of the case. Montgomery also raised concerns about other evidence that was presented during her trial. This included items found in her vehicle that were linked to drug use and remarks made during the trial suggesting she showed no remorse for her actions. The court found that much of this evidence was not necessary and could unfairly bias the jury against Montgomery. The decision ultimately led to the reversal of her conviction for Second Degree Murder because of the instructional error on Misdemeanor Manslaughter, while they upheld the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. The judges aimed to ensure that future trials would avoid the errors found in Montgomery's case.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1199, Cody Robert Grenemyer appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for two counts. One judge dissented. Grenemyer was found guilty of committing serious sexual crimes against his daughters, including rape and lewd molestation. The abuse happened over a period of time and was described by multiple victims. Despite Grenemyer's denial of the allegations, the testimony of his daughters was consistent and compelling enough for the jury to convict him. During the trial, Grenemyer wanted to introduce evidence that the younger victims had been molested by another man earlier. However, the trial court decided that this information wasn't relevant to the case at hand. The judge recognized that while the evidence could have some bearing, it also risked confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing the victims. Grenemyer argued that his sentences were too harsh, claiming that life imprisonment without parole was not appropriate under the law effective at the time of his offenses. However, this was found to be without merit as the law allowed for such sentences. The appeals court found an issue with how much past behavior information was shared during the trial, particularly focusing on the testimonies of older siblings who spoke of their own experiences of abuse. The amount of such information might have led the jury to concentrate more on past actions rather than the specific charges brought against Grenemyer. The judges agreed that while the evidence did not affect the jury's determination of guilt, it likely influenced the sentences they recommended. Thus, Grenemyer’s sentences for the first-degree rape charges were modified to ensure he would have the possibility for parole after serving a portion of his sentence. In conclusion, while the convictions were upheld based on the strong testimony of the victims, the sentence was adjusted to reflect the concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the overwhelming amount of past abuse information presented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-909, Val Wilkerson appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Val Wilkerson was found guilty by a jury in Haskell County for a serious crime. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years in prison. After the trial, Wilkerson felt that things went wrong and he raised several points to appeal. First, he argued that the State used too much unfair evidence from other incidents that made him look bad. He thought this made the trial unfair. Second, he believed it was wrong for the prosecutors and police to mention that he had stayed quiet when asked questions. Third, he said the court did not give the jury the correct instructions. Lastly, he claimed that all these mistakes together made his trial unfair. The Court looked over everything carefully and agreed that the way other crimes were presented was a problem. They found that even though some earlier actions of Wilkerson were similar to what he was accused of, the older incidents happened a long time ago and should not have been brought up so much in his trial. The Court determined that while some bad evidence was allowed, the main evidence against Wilkerson was enough for the jury to find him guilty. However, the additional bad evidence likely influenced the length of the sentence because the prosecutor asked the jury to consider these past actions when deciding on punishment. Since the Court believed that the jury was distracted by this unfair evidence while deciding on the punishment, they changed the sentence to fifteen years instead of thirty. They also concluded that other issues raised by Wilkerson either did not affect the trial’s fairness or were fixed by the trial court’s instructions. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed that the punishment was too harsh and lowered it. One judge disagreed and believed the case should be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-381, Cecil Ray Johnson appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Cecil Ray Johnson was found guilty of kidnapping and received a 20-year prison sentence. He argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed the crime of kidnapping. He also said that evidence of other crimes should not have been allowed in the trial because it did not have a clear connection to the kidnapping charges. The court agreed with Johnson on the second point. They explained that evidence of other crimes can sometimes be used, but it must be relevant to the case at hand. In this situation, the evidence of Johnson’s past acts was too old and did not clearly connect to the kidnapping charge. The court said that using this evidence could unfairly influence the jury against Johnson. Because of the problems with the evidence, the court found that Johnson did not receive a fair trial. Even though they thought there was enough evidence for his conviction, they had to reverse the decision because it was unfair to include the other crimes evidence. In conclusion, the judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial to ensure Johnson gets a fair chance in court. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the evidence of other crimes was relevant to show Johnson’s intent.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1086, Anthony Paul Free appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Free was found guilty of Lewd Molestation after an incident on December 10, 2005, involving a seven-year-old girl. The girl's aunt saw Free touching her inappropriately. During the trial, the State introduced evidence of Free's prior sexual offenses from twenty years earlier, which Free objected to. He argued that this evidence was unfair and did not relate to the current case. The court ultimately found that the past offenses had no clear connection to the current charges. They determined that using this older evidence was likely to prejudice the jury against Free, which isn't allowed. As a result, the trial court's decision to admit this evidence was seen as a substantial violation of Free's rights, leading the court to reverse the previous conviction and call for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-348, Charles Terrell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to ten years. One judge dissented. Charles Terrell was found guilty by a jury for molesting a young girl. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison. During the trial, evidence about other crimes was brought up, which included testimony from Terrell's former step-daughter who said Terrell had abused her too. Terrell argued that this testimony was unfair and should not have been allowed, as it could make the jury think he was guilty of more than just the crime he was accused of in this case. The court agreed that mentioning the other crimes was not handled well, as it wasn't properly limited. However, they also believed the main evidence from the victim in this case was strong and enough to show he was guilty. They found that allowing the other testimony did not change the fact that Terrell was guilty, so his conviction stood. On the topic of his sentence, the court thought about how the other crimes evidence might have led the jury to give him a much longer sentence than they would have otherwise. Because of this, they decided to reduce his sentence to ten years instead of twenty. The court concluded that the main evidence was solid, but the details about his past accusations were overly prejudicial and affected the severity of his punishment. The judge also noted that a photograph of the victim was properly allowed into evidence and was not seen as too harmful. In the end, while the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen the time Terrell would spend in prison, trimming it down to ten years.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-110, Gilbert Vega, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (while in the commission of Attempted Robbery with a Firearm). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gilbert Vega, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for the murder of Francisco Hernandez. This murder happened during an attempted robbery at Hernandez's home in Oklahoma City in December 2003. During the trial, the focus was on whether Vega was involved in the incident that led to Hernandez's death. The night of the murder, Hernandez, his girlfriend, and a cousin were in their home when three armed men broke in, threatening them. They physically assaulted the girlfriend and demanded information about money and drugs believed to be in the house. After the attackers had beaten and bound the victims, shots were fired. A neighbor heard the commotion and called for help, but by the time police arrived, Hernandez was dead. Evidence against Vega came mainly from his girlfriend, Rachel Prior. She testified that Vega and his cousin left their home that night intending to rob someone. When Vega returned around 3 a.m., he allegedly threatened her with a gun and described how the robbery went wrong. He claimed to have physically assaulted the girlfriend of the victim and had shot a weapon during the incident. Moments later, police found a gun linked to the crime at Prior's house, and DNA evidence from that gun matched Vega's DNA. In the case, several arguments were debated regarding evidence and trial procedures. Vega's team argued that he was denied a fair trial due to certain evidence being admitted. This included evidence related to a boot print found at the crime scene. The court ruled that these demonstrations were not misleading to the jury and were part of a larger set of evidence against Vega, which included strong DNA evidence. Vega also claimed there were errors in allowing certain evidence about DNA testing from beer bottles found near the crime scene and argued his jury was not properly instructed regarding sentencing rules that could affect his case. However, the court found no significant errors and stated that evidence presented at the trial, including Prior's testimony, was strong enough to support the conviction. Ultimately, while Vega's conviction for murder was upheld, the court determined that he needed to be resentenced.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-911, Timothy Griffith appealed his conviction for two counts of Attempted First Degree Rape and eight counts of sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences except for one count of attempted first degree rape, which was reversed and dismissed. One judge dissented. Griffith was found guilty of two attempted rapes and eight counts of sexually abusing a child, and he was given a total of 61 years in prison. He argued that both his rights against double jeopardy and his right to a fair trial had been violated, among other claims. The court reviewed each of Griffith's arguments. For the first point, the court found there was enough evidence to support the charges and no violation of double jeopardy. For the second and third points, the court ruled that the prosecutor had the discretion to charge Griffith with attempted rape instead of just intent to commit rape, so the trial was fair. Regarding the case's fourth and fifth points, the court decided that the additional testimonies from adult witnesses and the child's prior statements were allowable and did not greatly harm Griffith's case. The sixth allegation about a medical opinion from a physician assistant was also found not to be a problem since it did not influence the jury's decision directly. On point seven, the court agreed that the judge made a mistake by not letting Griffith fully present his defense. This part was significant because it led to the reversal of one of the counts against him. Finally, the court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive despite the overall situation, and there were no errors that would justify further action. In summary, most of Griffith's arguments were not persuasive to the court, and while some parts of the conviction remained, one count was removed due to the identified error.