In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1129, Julius Jerome Walker appealed his conviction for multiple charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but reversed one count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Walker was charged in a District Court in Muskogee County with serious crimes including Assault and Battery and Child Abuse. He decided to plead guilty to all the charges. The judge sentenced him to life for each charge, but they would all be served at the same time. After some time, Walker wanted to change his mind and filed a request to withdraw his guilty plea. During the hearing on his request, Walker raised several reasons why he felt he deserved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his lawyer did not help him well enough during the whole legal process, which is known as ineffective assistance of counsel. He also said he was punished too many times for actions that were really just one event, and that his sentences were much too harsh. After looking closely at all of his claims and the case details, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw the plea. However, they agreed with Walker on one point: he had been punished too many times for one part of his actions, so they decided to dismiss one of the counts against him. The court found that Walker’s arguments about ineffective assistance of counsel were not strong enough to change the outcome of the case except for that one count. They explained that his lawyer’s performance did have a small mistake, but most of what his lawyer did was acceptable. Finally, regarding the severity of his sentences, the court did not think they were too extreme, as they were in line with what the law allowed. Thus, they ruled that his punishments were fair based on the circumstances of the case. In summary, Walker did not succeed in changing his guilty plea except for one part of the case. The court maintained most of the convictions and sentences while ensuring that he would not be unfairly punished for the same event more than once.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-462, K.T.L. appealed his conviction for robbery by force/fear and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the lower court's order denying K.T.L.'s motion to be treated as a juvenile was incorrect and should be reversed. K.T.L. was found to have substantial evidence supporting his request for juvenile treatment, and thus, the court instructed to certify him as a juvenile. One justice dissented, believing that the original decision should be upheld.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-51, Wilkes appealed his conviction for second-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition, allowing Wilkes to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Darren Casey Wilkes had originally entered a no contest plea to second-degree rape but later sought to change that plea after not being accepted into a special program meant for young adults. This program was key to his decision to plead no contest. When he was denied entry into that program, he believed he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the conditions he agreed to were not fulfilled. The court reviewed the case and found that Wilkes’s plea was based on an agreement that included eligibility for the Delayed Sentencing Program. The problem arose from incorrect paperwork that included charges that were supposed to be dropped. Since this error affected Wilkes's eligibility and the terms of his plea, the court determined that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Throughout the process, it was clear that Wilkes did not admit guilt but entered his plea with the expectation of receiving certain benefits. Instead of receiving those benefits, he was sentenced to ten years in prison without the opportunity to participate in the program. The court concluded that the right remedy was to allow Wilkes to withdraw his plea and return to where he was before his plea was entered.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1181, Joe Reaner Strong appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to the district court's failure to give the jury an instruction requested by Strong on the lesser offense of second degree manslaughter. One member dissented. Joe Reaner Strong was convicted of Second Degree Felony Murder after his two-year-old grandson died in a fire that started when the child found matches at home. At the time, Strong had left his grandson asleep alone for about two hours while he went to pick up his wife. The child was later found unresponsive and died from smoke inhalation. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Strong was responsible for child neglect because he left the child unsupervised. Strong's defense claimed that he was negligent but did not intend for his actions to harm the child. Strong believed that he should have been allowed to present his defense, which included the possibility that he was guilty of a lesser crime - second degree manslaughter instead of murder. The court noted it is important for the jury to hear all aspects of a case, including possible lesser offenses if there is evidence to support them. In this situation, the court stated that there was enough evidence suggesting that Strong's negligence might not rise to the level of murder. Instead, it could have been just an unfortunate accident due to lack of care under the circumstances. The decision determined that the jury should have been instructed on second degree manslaughter because Strong's actions might not have been willful neglect, which is necessary for a murder charge. Because the jury could have reasonably believed that Strong did not intend to leave the child alone and that his actions were the result of carelessness, the court ruled that not allowing this instruction was a mistake that impacted the fairness of the trial. In summary, the appellate court reversed Strong's conviction and ordered a new trial due to the district court's error in handling the jury instructions related to the lesser charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-648, the appellant appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appellant should be given the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-2, Clinton Riley Potts appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. No one dissented. Clinton Riley Potts was found guilty by a jury of murdering Gregory Clark. This happened after Potts learned that Clark was dating his girlfriend. The court sentenced Potts to life in prison without the chance for parole. Potts believed he did not have a fair trial. He thought that the prosecutor did not tell his lawyer important information about a witness. This information could have helped show that the witness was not telling the truth and also could have helped Potts’s case. He also argued that his own lawyer did not do enough to prepare for the trial, did not look into the case properly, and did not bring in important witnesses. After Potts appealed, an evidentiary hearing was held. During this hearing, it was shown that Potts’s lawyer did not investigate the case as well as he should have. They found that the prosecutor had information about a key witness who had received special treatment for testifying at Potts's trial, but they did not share this information with Potts's lawyer. The judge who looked at the evidence agreed that Potts did not receive a fair trial. This finding was important because the judge had also been the one who oversaw Potts's original trial, making him well aware of how the mistakes may have affected the trial's outcome. The court decided that Potts's arguments about unfairness were valid. Since this was the case, they reversed the initial verdict and said that Potts should have a new trial. The decision meant that the earlier trial was not valid anymore, and the court ordered that Potts would get another chance to present his case in a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-293, Downs appealed his conviction for a probation violation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Downs had entered guilty pleas for several crimes in 2004, which included assault and possessing controlled substances. After completing part of his sentence in 2006, some of his time was suspended, meaning he would not have to serve it if he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2008, the State accused him of violating his probation because he was arrested for a new crime. A hearing took place in 2010 where evidence was presented, and the judge found that the State proved Downs had violated his probation. As a result, all of his suspended sentence was revoked. Downs raised several arguments in his appeal, saying the trial judge made mistakes that affected his case. He claimed he was not given enough time to prepare his defense, that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and that he was not allowed to confront witnesses. He also argued that the revocation was for too long and that the judge didn't have the right to revoke his sentence. The court examined each of Downs' claims. They found that it was reasonable for the judge to deny a continuance for more time to prepare, and that the evidence at the hearing was enough to support the revocation of his probation. They also stated that Downs had waived his right to a quick hearing, meaning the 20-day rule that he mentioned did not apply. In the end, the court did agree that there was a small mistake in the length of time noted for the revoked sentence, which needed to be corrected. However, they affirmed the decision to revoke all of Downs' suspended sentences. Thus, the court ordered that a corrected record be made to show the right amount of time for his sentences. The judges all generally agreed on the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.
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-2009-1110, Twilia Renae Wise appealed her conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented, believing that the case should not be remanded for a new trial without further review.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-1033, the petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of permitting child abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for the writ of certiorari, allowing the petitioner to withdraw his plea of no contest. One judge dissented. The petitioner, Huyen Cleveland Tran, was charged in 2004, with permitting child abuse in Oklahoma County. In May 2007, the petitioner entered a no contest plea and received a deferred sentence, which means she wouldn’t have to go to prison right away if she followed certain rules. However, in 2009, the State asked the court to speed up her sentence, and the court decided she should serve five years in prison. Tran then wanted to take back her plea of no contest because she believed she didn’t fully understand it and thought she had a valid defense. She raised several issues in her appeal, including that she did not have effective legal help because her attorney represented both her and her husband, who was also charged. This was seen as a conflict of interest. The court agreed with Tran that her attorney had a conflict because he could not fully defend her without hurting her husband’s case. Since this conflict affected her legal representation, the court granted her request to withdraw her plea. The ruling means that Tran can now have a new chance to argue her case without the problems that came from the conflict of interest with her previous lawyer. One judge felt that rather than allowing Tran to withdraw her plea completely, the case should be sent back for a proper hearing with a new lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019 and RE-2009-1020, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the full revocation of his seven-year suspended sentences to a three-year revocation with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and received a suspended sentence. Later, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes. The judge found enough evidence to revoke his entire suspended sentence, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that a small amount of marijuana found in a car he was driving was not enough to prove he controlled it because it was not his car. He also claimed that revoking his entire sentence was too harsh and should be changed. However, the court upheld the judge's finding that the appellant indeed had control over the marijuana since he was driving the car alone and had acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia in the car. The court found merit in the appellant's argument about the harshness of the punishment because the reasons for revoking the full sentence were incorrect. The judge had based his decision on prior allegations that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny during the revocation hearing. The violations were also deemed minor and were not even prosecuted. In the end, the court decided to cut the original seven-year full revocation down to three years while keeping four years suspended, demonstrating that the punishment still reflected the violations but was fairer given the circumstances.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019, Rico Raynelle Pearson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation from a full seven years to three years with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved two prior cases where Pearson pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and received a suspended sentence of seven years. However, the State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentence after he allegedly committed new violations, including possession of drugs and traffic offenses. During the revocation hearing, the judge determined that Pearson had violated his probation and revoked his suspended sentence completely. However, Pearson argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that the punishment was too harsh for the minor violations he committed. The appeals court agreed that the original decision to revoke the entire sentence was excessive because the stated reasons were not correct and the violations were minor. The court noted that one reason for the revocation was based on a misunderstanding regarding earlier convictions that were not relevant. Consequently, they reduced the length of the revocation while still affirming the revocation of some portion of his sentences.
In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-210, Eric Anthony Damon appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a new hearing, allowing Damon to appoint new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Eric Anthony Damon faced serious charges, and he decided to enter a guilty plea without fully understanding all the details. After entering the plea, he felt that his defense lawyer did not help him properly, especially during the trial. He thought this was unfair and wrote to ask the court if he could change his plea. The court discussed whether Damon should get a new lawyer to help him withdraw his guilty plea. When someone says their lawyer didn’t help them well, the law usually says they should have a different lawyer to make sure everything is alright. The court realized that it can be really tricky when the same lawyer is trying to help with the plea withdrawal while being accused of not doing a good job. Damon had reasons to believe his plea wasn’t fair. During the trial, he had trouble with getting some witnesses to show up. He felt forced to plead guilty since his lawyer could not call certain key witnesses who might have helped him. The court didn’t want to decide if his plea was valid right away. Instead, they thought it would be best to let Damon have a new lawyer represent him in this important matter. In summary, the court agreed with Damon and said he should have a chance to explain his situation better with new legal support. They ordered this to be done and made sure Damon had the right to defend himself with a lawyer who could deal with his concerns about his earlier representation.
In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.