Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1111.1 Archives - Page 2 of 2

F-2001-1165

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1165, Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences. One judge dissented. Chapman was found guilty of several serious charges, including first-degree rape, rape by instrumentation, kidnapping, and drug-related offenses in Logan County. He was given lengthy prison sentences, amounting to a total of 480 years. Chapman raised many reasons to challenge his convictions and sentences. He argued that the evidence presented against him was unfairly prejudicial, and he claimed that his lawyer's comments during the trial hurt his case. Chapman also thought that the jury's verdicts for some of the sexual crimes were not allowed under the law because they were too similar. He felt that the trial court did not allow enough time for his lawyer to prepare and that his sentences were too harsh. The court examined all the evidence and arguments. They found no reason to overturn the convictions but decided that some of the sentences should be changed. The judges agreed that the evidence from other crimes was relevant and that it did not unfairly influence the jury. They believed that the sentences for the rape charges were too long and changed them to life imprisonment, while still upholding the other sentences. The court concluded that there were no overall errors that would change the outcome of the trial, and they affirmed most of the decisions made by the lower court. However, one judge disagreed with the modification of the sentences, believing that the jury's decisions on the punishments were justified given the severity of the crimes Chapman committed.

F-2001-692

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 15, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-692, William Ray Pratt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for most counts but reversed one count due to lack of evidence. One member of the court dissented. Pratt was found guilty of several serious crimes against a child and was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison, with the sentences for each count set to run one after the other. He challenged his conviction on several grounds, which were carefully reviewed by the court. First, Pratt argued that evidence of other crimes against him should not have been allowed in the trial. The court found that this evidence was considered appropriate because it showed similar behavior. Next, Pratt claimed there were mistakes made during the trial that hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court disagreed, saying that the mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of his trial. Finally, Pratt mentioned that there was not enough evidence for one of the counts against him. The court agreed with this, stating that the required proof of penetration was missing for that specific count, leading them to reverse the conviction for that charge and instruct the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, while Pratt's appeal was partially successful, the court upheld most of his convictions and sentences.

F 2000-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.

F 2000-152

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.