Okla. Stat. tit. 14 § 7 Archives

M-2017-739

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 1, 2018
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-739, Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garza to represent himself during the acceleration proceedings without him properly waiving his right to counsel. One judge dissented. Garza had initially entered a guilty plea to a DUI charge and was given eighteen months of probation. However, the State later accused him of not following the rules of his probation, such as failing to report and not paying fines. When Garza addressed the court without a lawyer during these acceleration proceedings, the court did not properly document that he understood his right to have a lawyer or that he chose to give up that right. The court's opinion stressed that anyone facing charges has the right to a lawyer and can only waive this right if they do so knowingly and intelligently. This means they need to understand the consequences of representing themselves. Since the court did not show that Garza waived his right to counsel properly, the decision to sentence him was reversed. The matter was sent back to the lower court, instructing them to vacate the judgment and hold further proceedings that follow this ruling.

F 2003-189

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-189, James Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. James Dean Meadows was found guilty of First Degree Murder by a jury. The trial took place in Oklahoma City from February 10 to 18, 2003. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for his crime. After being sentenced on February 21, 2003, Meadows appealed, bringing up five issues he believed were wrong with the trial. One of the key issues was about how his videotaped statement to the police was collected. Meadows argued that the police violated his rights by not properly informing him of his right to remain silent before they questioned him. He claimed that he was not voluntarily giving his statement, as he was taken from his home by police with guns drawn, and they did not tell him he was under arrest at the time. The police later interviewed him at their station, where they pressured him to admit his involvement in the crime. The court found that Meadows was indeed not free to leave when the police took him from his home, which meant that he was effectively under arrest without being formally informed. Because of this illegal seizure, the court ruled that his confession to the police could not be used as evidence against him. The court stated that such a confession was obtained without the rights requiring a formal warning being given to Meadows. Since the court decided that Meadow's confession was not admissible, the judgment against him was reversed, meaning he would have to be tried again. Because of this decision, the other issues raised in the appeal were not considered. In summary, the court determined that James Dean Meadows should have a new trial because the way the police obtained his confession was illegal and violated his rights.