In OCCA case No. F-2010-548, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to properly inform the appellant about the dangers of representing himself. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-99, Sheila Diane Royal appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm all of Royal's convictions but to modify her sentence for one of the misdemeanor charges due to a procedural error during her trial. One judge dissented. Royal was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. The jury determined that Royal had prior felony convictions, which enhanced her sentence. Royal received a life sentence without parole for the drug trafficking charge, among other sentences for the remaining charges. The case began when police officers went to Royal's house to look for a man with a warrant. Royal and her boyfriend denied knowing him and gave consent for the officers to search. During the search, officers found scales, crack cocaine, marijuana, a firearm, and a large amount of cash, leading to Royal's arrest. Royal raised several issues on appeal, including claims of multiple punishments for the trafficking and tax stamp offenses, the proper handling of her prior convictions during the trial, and the way the trial court conducted jury selection. The court found that the convictions for trafficking and failing to obtain a tax stamp did not violate double jeopardy rules because the laws intended for separate punishments. It also concluded that Royal did not make a sufficient objection to how her prior convictions were handled, thus denying her request for relief. Regarding the claim about possession of paraphernalia, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by improperly separating the trial stages, which influenced the jury's punishment decision. The court modified her sentence for this charge accordingly. The jury selection process was also scrutinized, but the court upheld the removal of certain jurors who may not have been impartial due to their own legal issues. Lastly, the court noted that Royal was required to wear a shock device during trial, which raised concerns under legal rules governing restraints on defendants. The court agreed that there wasn't enough evidence justifying the need for such restraint, but because it was not visible to the jury, it did not affect the trial's outcome. In summary, while Royal's convictions were largely upheld, the court made adjustments based on procedural concerns during her trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-131, Darius Darrell Payne appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Payne's convictions on all counts but remanded the matter for a new sentencing proceeding on certain counts due to errors in jury instructions. One judge dissented. The case began when police officers went to a house where Payne was present, looking for a man with an arrest warrant. When they entered, they found illegal drugs, a gun, and cash, leading to Payne's arrest. During the trial, the jury found Payne guilty on multiple charges and set significant punishment for his crimes, including life in prison without the possibility of parole for the drug trafficking offense. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that being punished for both trafficking and failure to obtain a drug tax stamp for the same drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment. The court found that the laws allowed for separate punishments, so this argument was rejected. Payne also claimed that the jury wasn't properly instructed about the requirements for his life sentence. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect, leading to a ruling that he should have a new sentencing hearing for this and another charge related to marijuana possession. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court should not have separated the misdemeanor charge regarding drug paraphernalia, which led to a penalty that was likely influenced by prior convictions that weren't relevant for that specific charge. As a result, the court reduced his sentence for possession of paraphernalia from one year to three months. Lastly, there were also some mistakes on the official documents from the trial that needed to be corrected, such as the wrong section numbers and indications of pleading guilty that were factually incorrect. In summary, while Payne's convictions were upheld, the court found that certain errors related to sentencing and jury instructions necessitated further proceedings. The final decision called for changes to some sentences while affirming others.
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-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-335, Jermaine Darnell Jeffery appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Jermaine was found guilty of several serious crimes related to a shooting incident. During the trial, the jury decided on punishments for his actions, including life in prison for murder. Jermaine argued that there wasn't enough proof to connect his shooting with the death of the victim and that he was punished unfairly for the same crime more than once, which is known as double jeopardy. He also claimed that his rights were violated when the court allowed evidence about his silence after being arrested and that hearsay statements from other witnesses should not have been allowed. Jermaine felt he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor talked about things not proven in court and that his punishment was too harsh. Additionally, he argued that his lawyer did not do a good job by not pointing out mistakes during the trial. The court reviewed all the evidence and arguments. They agreed that there was enough proof for the murder charge but recognized a mistake in charging Jermaine with both murder and the shooting he did, leading to the reversal of that specific charge. The court found that some errors did happen, but most were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they upheld the punishments for the other crimes while agreeing to dismiss the shooting conviction.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-617, Christopher Overby appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm While Under Supervision of the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when Overby pleaded guilty to having a firearm while he was supposed to be under supervision. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, with some of that time being suspended. After some time, Overby wanted to change his plea, so he filed a motion to withdraw it. He felt that he did not get proper help from his lawyer during this process. The court looked at Overby's case and determined that there was a conflict of interest between him and his lawyer. Because of this conflict, the court found that Overby did not get the effective help he was entitled to, especially when it came to his request to withdraw his plea. This situation meant he deserved a new hearing with a different lawyer who could fully represent his interests without a conflict. In conclusion, the court decided that Overby should have another chance to present his case for changing his plea. Thus, the decision was made to give him a new hearing to ensure that he had the right kind of support during this important process.
In OCCA case No. C 2008-1183, Kory Williams appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, leading to the granting of his petition for certiorari. The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings. One member dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1043, William D. Hibdon appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions. One judge dissented. Hibdon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 31 years in prison. The convictions were based on evidence found after police officers searched his home without a search warrant. The police had gone to Hibdon’s house after receiving a tip that he was making methamphetamine. When they arrived, they smelled ether, a chemical often used in meth production. After arresting Hibdon, one officer entered the house without a warrant and found more evidence. Hibdon argued that this search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but this was denied by the trial court. The appeals court found that the officers had enough time to get a search warrant but did not do so. They decided that there was no immediate danger to the public that would justify the warrantless search. Since the officers did not meet the requirements for an emergency situation, the court believed Hibdon’s rights were violated. Therefore, the evidence obtained during the search could not be used against him. The court reversed Hibdon's convictions and sent the case back for further proceedings. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing that the police acted correctly in their search based on the circumstances they faced at the time. This dissenting opinion asserted that the smell of ether justified a limited check of the house for safety reasons. Overall, the majority decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a proper search warrant to protect individuals' rights, while the dissent highlighted the potential dangers law enforcement officers may face in similar situations.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-763, Armand Rashawn Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including robbery with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One member dissented. Johnson was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 30 years in prison for some counts, while others had sentences ranging from 20 to 40 years. The main reasons for his appeal focused on concerns about how the jury was instructed and treated during the trial. Johnson argued that the trial court's actions could have influenced the jurors' decisions, which should be based on facts and law alone. The court agreed with Johnson on several points. It found that the trial judge's comments and guidance during jury selection were inappropriate and could have pressured the jurors into making decisions against their personal beliefs. This meant that the fairness of his trial was in question. Since the court decided to reverse Johnson's convictions, there was no need to examine the other claims he made about the evidence and the fairness of his sentence. The court emphasized that jurors should only be focused on the law and evidence presented to them and not on any frustrations that might come from court procedures. As a result, Johnson will get a new trial, where the procedures may be handled in a way that better protects his rights.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-260, Ronnie Lamonte Lister appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony, but reversed the conviction for Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2008-287, Matthew Thornbrough appealed his conviction for several counts, including possession of a firearm and operating a police radio. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for operating a police radio and ordered it to be dismissed, while affirming his convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-848, Marvis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, and pointing a firearm at another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm but reversed and dismissed the conviction for pointing a firearm. One judge dissented. Marvis Evans was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison for each crime, but some sentences would be served at the same time. Evans argued that he was punished unfairly because of double jeopardy, meaning he did not think he should be tried and punished for the same act in two different ways. He also claimed there wasn't enough proof to prove he committed the crimes. The court looked at Evans's arguments closely. They found that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, and the law does allow for those two separate charges. However, they agreed that Evans was punished too harshly for pointing a firearm, which they decided to dismiss because it was too similar to the robbery charge. In the end, the court confirmed that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, but not for pointing a firearm. They ruled that the evidence against him was strong, including being caught shortly after the crime and making incriminating statements to police. Therefore, the court upheld part of his punishment but removed one conviction.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-176, the State of Oklahoma appealed its case against a person charged with multiple crimes, including trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court had ruled that some evidence obtained from a locked safe in the motel room during the arrest should be suppressed, meaning it couldn't be used in court. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they believed the trial court made an error by not allowing a detective to share specific statements from a witness who gave permission to search the hotel room. Second, they thought the officers had the right to search the locked safe without needing a warrant. After looking closely at the case and the reasons for the trial court's decisions, the court concluded that the trial judge had done the right thing. It found that the trial court's rulings about hearsay, which refers to using second-hand information as evidence, were not wrong. The judges decided the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching that locked safe. The court affirmed, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence from the safe. A judge dissented but the main ruling stood.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-616, Donald and Tanya Dorr appealed their convictions for various drug-related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss all of their convictions. One judge dissented. Donald Dorr was found guilty of growing and possessing marijuana, carrying a firearm as a felon, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He received a 20-year prison sentence and other fines. His wife, Tanya Dorr, was convicted of marijuana cultivation and possession, receiving a suspended sentence and a fine. The Dorrs argued that the police searched their property illegally. They raised several issues about the search, including that it was based on observations from a helicopter without a warrant, and that their consent to search the property was not given freely. The court found that the initial observation from the helicopter did not violate their rights, as the police were allowed to look from the air. However, the Dorrs raised valid points about the lack of a search warrant. The court noted that police did not show there was immediate danger that required them to act quickly without a warrant. The officers had enough time to get a search warrant after spotting the marijuana. The court also considered the circumstances under which Donald Dorr gave consent to search. They found that the large presence of armed officers, along with a helicopter overhead, likely made it challenging for Dorr to give genuine consent. The judges decided that the officers acted inappropriately by not seeking a warrant and that the consent given was not voluntary. Since the evidence obtained from the search was considered illegal, the court concluded that all charges against the Dorrs should be dismissed. This decision rendered the other arguments made by the Dorrs unnecessary. Therefore, all convictions against Donald Dorr and Tanya Dorr were reversed and dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-684, Aaron Christopher Marks appealed his conviction for shooting with intent to kill, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for shooting with intent to kill to forty-five years in prison but upheld the conviction. One judge dissented, arguing that there was no need for sentence modification since the jury likely did not need instruction on parole eligibility and the original sentence was justified based on the evidence presented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.
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.