In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-422, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences for certain counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Jerry Lee Mays, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The jury sentenced him to several years in prison, varying by count. Appellant believed that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support his conviction for shooting with intent to kill. He argued that there was no proof of his intent to kill a specific person when he fired his weapon. Mays also claimed that his convictions violated double jeopardy laws, which protect individuals from being tried for the same crime multiple times. He argued that he should not be punished for both possession of a firearm and shooting with intent to kill since they were related offenses. Additionally, he felt that his punishment for possession of a firearm was excessive, that the jury should not have considered assault and battery as a lesser offense, and that the jury did not receive adequate instructions about his right to a fair trial. The court carefully reviewed Mays's arguments and considered all the evidence from the trial. They found that the jury had enough evidence to convict him of shooting with intent to kill. Even though Mays focused on the victim’s perception of his actions, the law does not depend solely on that view but considers all evidence as part of understanding a defendant's intent. The court also concluded that Mays's double jeopardy claim did not hold since he committed two separate offenses at different times. The first offense was possessing the firearm, and the second offense was shooting at people, which were considered distinct. In terms of sentencing, the court recognized that Mays's conviction for possession relied on prior felony convictions, which were also used in different charges. However, they concluded this did not unfairly impact his sentence. Important to note was that the trial court had made an error in telling the jury that Mays's conviction for assault and battery could be enhanced due to previous felonies, which was incorrect for a misdemeanor charge. The judges found that this error did not change the overall outcome significantly, so it was ruled as harmless. They did acknowledge a need to change the length of Mays's sentence for shooting with intent to kill from forty years to thirty years for each of those counts due to one of Mays's points about jury instructions that were missed. Ultimately, the court affirmed most of Mays's convictions and modified some sentences. Despite some errors, the judges felt that Mays received a fair trial overall, and the necessary adjustments to his sentences did not warrant a full new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1271, Darrell Antonio Cheadle appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences were modified to life in prison for each count, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. One judge dissented, stating that the delay before the trial was prejudicial to the defendant's defense, but agreed that the evidence of guilt was very strong.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1278, James Lorenzo Devers appealed his conviction for Inducing a Minor to Engage in Prostitution and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions with some modifications. One judge dissented. Devers was tried in Tulsa County and found guilty of multiple charges involving sexual misconduct with teenage boys. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines after considering testimonies from three victims who claimed Devers offered them money to perform sexual acts. Despite some conflicting details regarding the timing of his proposal, the evidence against Devers was strong, including his own confession about some of the offenses. The appeal included several arguments. One claim was about the trial court's decision not to separate the charges for trial. The court maintained that the offenses were connected and reflected a consistent pattern of behavior, justifying their joint consideration. The court found no prejudice in trying the counts together. Devers also argued the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the punishment for his indecent proposal charge. However, the court noted that the error did not change the outcome since he would have received the same sentence even under the correct guideline. Another point of appeal was regarding whether the jury was informed about parole eligibility. The court ruled the instructions were appropriate since the charges in question did not include those that required serving a certain percentage of the sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged that there was a mixing of punishment provisions in the instructions but decided any fines would be adjusted because of that error. Ultimately, after reviewing all claims, the court upheld the convictions but modified the fine amount for Devers' offenses. The judgment was affirmed with modifications, while one judge expressed disagreement with some aspects of the decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1437, Alonzo Gabriel Davison appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Sexually Abusing a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. One judge dissented. Davison was found guilty of two serious crimes related to child abuse and was sentenced to a total of 125 years in prison. However, the court agreed that some mistakes were made during the trial that affected how the case was handled. The main issues in the appeal included the fairness of the jury selection process, the admission of a videotape of a child’s testimony, and how the judge handled questions from the jury about sentencing. Davison argued that two jurors should not have been allowed to serve because they were biased and had strong feelings about child abuse, which could have impacted their decision. The court discussed how judges have discretion in deciding if a juror can be fair, but in this case, they felt that there were too many doubts about the impartiality of those jurors. Even though Davison's team challenged these jurors, they still ended up on the jury. However, because the defense did not follow all proper procedures to ensure their objections were raised correctly, the court ruled that Davison could not claim this issue harmed him in the end. Next, Davison argued that a videotape showing an interview with one of the child victims should not have been used in court. The court eventually agreed this was a mistake, but they decided it was a harmless error regarding his guilt—that is, it did not affect the jury's decision about whether he was guilty. However, the impact of such evidence on sentencing was considered more serious, leading the court to reduce each of his sentences to 45 years, which would run at the same time instead of one after the other. Regarding the jury's questions about parole and sentencing rules, the court concluded the trial judge was correct not to answer these questions, indicating that it was within the judge's discretion. Overall, while the court found some mistakes were made in how the trial was conducted, they decided that Davison's convictions were still valid, but he would serve a lighter sentence.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1170, Willie West King, Jr. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation of a Child Under Sixteen Years Old. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Count I but reversed the conviction for Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence for Count I, suggesting it should be modified to 20 years. Willie West King, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of lewd molestation after a trial in Texas County. The jury gave a punishment of 65 years for each count, and these sentences were to be served one after the other. King appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the jury instruction on the crime had a serious mistake because it left out an important part that should have been included. However, the court found that even though this was a mistake, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial because other parts of the instructions were clear. Second, King argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the second count against him. The court agreed, saying that the evidence really showed an attempt rather than a completed act of lewdness. Therefore, they reversed that part of the conviction and said it should be dismissed. Third, King felt that the court should have told the jury they needed to have another witness to back up the victim's claim. The court disagreed, stating that the victim’s testimony was believable, and did not need another person to support it. Fourth, King thought that the jury should have been informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found that this wasn’t necessary in this case because the law didn’t require it. They also decided that the prosecutor’s comments during the trial didn’t unfairly influence the jury’s decision. Fifth, King raised a concern about evidence from Texas being allowed in without proper proof. However, the court found that the evidence was correctly shown as valid. Lastly, King argued that all the mistakes in his trial together made it unfair for him. The court concluded that while there were some errors, they were not serious enough to have denied him a fair trial. In summary, the court upheld King’s conviction on Count I but found that Count II was not supported by enough evidence, so it was reversed and dismissed. One judge disagreed with the long sentence for Count I, believing it was too harsh and should be lowered to 20 years instead of 65 years.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.