In OCCA case No. C-2016-718, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence for one count where he was not charged, but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2016-778, Donald Garra Patterson appealed his conviction for Abuse by Caretaker, Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body, and Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Forgery/Fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on most counts but modified the sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body due to it being greater than allowed by law. One judge dissented. Patterson had entered a plea of guilty to various charges and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years for Abuse by Caretaker and seven years for each of the other charges. Afterward, he wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to and felt his lawyer had not helped him properly. The main issues raised included whether his plea was made knowingly and if his lawyer had conflicts of interest or failed to give him correct information. The court found that Patterson didn't support his claims about not understanding the plea and concluded his sentence for the crime of Unlawful Removal had to be changed because it was wrongly set longer than the law allowed. The court also confirmed that the mistakes in advising Patterson were not enough to prove he was treated unfairly by his lawyer. Ultimately, the court decided to lower his sentence for Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body to the correct maximum of five years and instructed the lower court to fix some record-keeping errors regarding fees.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-82, Angel Marie Proctor appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the kidnapping conviction with instructions to dismiss, while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-886, Russell Carl McCrillis appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for the trial court to assess a specific term of years for post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. McCrillis was convicted in a jury trial and received a twenty-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each count of lewd molestation. The sentences were ordered to be served at the same time. McCrillis raised several issues in his appeal. He claimed that his statement to the police should not have been allowed at trial because it was not made freely and voluntarily. He also argued that the jury should have been instructed about the voluntariness of his statement. Additionally, he pointed out that the trial court could not change his sentence to an indefinite probation after prison. Finally, he believed his sentences were too harsh. The court looked closely at whether McCrillis's statement to the police was voluntary and found that he had waived his rights properly and given his statement willingly. This meant the trial court did not make a mistake when it allowed the statement to be presented during the trial. The court did notice that while the judge should have instructed the jury on the voluntary nature of his confession, the lack of instruction didn’t really have an impact on the trial's outcome, as there was strong enough evidence against McCrillis. Regarding the trial court's authority to modify the sentence, the court agreed that it should have set a clear term for post-imprisonment supervision, which means after McCrillis serves his time, he should be supervised for a set number of years. The law says people convicted of certain crimes, like lewd molestation, must have a period of supervision after serving time, usually between nine months and a year. However, there is also a specific law stating that in cases of sexual offenses, supervision could be longer. The court noted that the trial judge didn’t give a fixed duration for supervision, which was a mistake. In the end, while the court agreed with McCrillis on the need for a specified period of supervision upon release, it found that his twenty-year sentence was not too severe based on the details of the crimes committed. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction but sent the case back to have the trial court determine the proper length of post-imprisonment supervision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-715, Kevin Judd Lemons appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to seventeen years in prison and reduce his fine to $10,000.00. One judge dissented regarding how the sentence was amended. The case began with Lemons being charged for drug trafficking and related offenses. During the trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and fined $25,000. He argued several points in his appeal, including that the search of his vehicle was illegal, and the evidence against him was insufficient. He also claimed that he received an excessive sentence and that his defense attorney did not represent him well. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. On the first point, the court found that the police did not act improperly during the traffic stop which led to the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia. The court explained that the officers were following the law during the search. Regarding the second point, the court noted that Lemons himself had admitted to his prior felony convictions, which relieved the State from having to further prove these convictions. This meant his claims about insufficient evidence for his previous felonies were not valid for the appeal. For the claim about his sentence being too harsh, the court agreed that Lemons had been sentenced incorrectly under the wrong punishment range. They adjusted the duration of his prison time downward to correct this mistake. They also ruled that the fine imposed was not appropriate under the law, which allowed them to reduce it to a lower amount. Lastly, Lemons contended that his lawyer failed to support him effectively. The court found that most of the points mentioned did not show a serious problem with the representation that would warrant further action. Overall, the court upheld Lemons' conviction but decided to make changes to both his prison time and the fine he had to pay. While most judges agreed, one judge thought that rather than changing the sentence directly, the case should be sent back for a new sentencing hearing.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-457, Christopher Wayne Goldman appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Sodomy, and Incest. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions for the first three counts but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Incest. One member of the court dissented. Goldman was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses against his niece. The jury recommended prison sentences that ran together for counts related to rape, sodomy, and separately for the count of incest. Goldman raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt for some charges, that unfair evidence was presented, that the prosecutor acted improperly, and that he did not receive adequate help from his attorney during the trial. The court agreed that the incest conviction should be reversed because it was based on the same act as the rape, which is not allowed by law. This meant Goldman was improperly punished for two things for doing one act, which is unfair. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Sodomy, stating that a jury could reasonably decide he was guilty based on the evidence presented. Goldman's claims about the prosecution and defense lawyer's conduct were reviewed, but the court found that the lawyers acted within their rights. The evidence of Goldman’s behavior after he was accused, which included uncomfortable actions in a police room, was allowed in the trial since it showed his possible guilt. In conclusion, while Goldman did not get relief for all his claims, the court recognized an important mistake about the incest charge and fixed it by not allowing that conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.
In OCCA case No. F-2015-155, Sauter appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Sauter was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Nowata County and was sentenced to a total of forty-seven years in prison along with fines. The evidence presented during the trial primarily came from two accomplices, Welsh and Fulcher. Sauter argued that since these accomplices’ testimonies were not supported by independent evidence, his convictions should not stand. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, the testimony of an accomplice cannot solely support a conviction unless there is other evidence that connects the defendant to the crime. The court found that while there was evidence linking Sauter’s vehicle to the crimes, there was no evidence that directly implicated Sauter himself. Since the only evidence against Sauter came from the testimonies of Welsh and Fulcher, which lacked corroboration, the court had to reverse the convictions. The dissenting judge felt there was enough independent evidence connecting Sauter to the crimes, particularly the fact that Sauter's car was used and that he had been seen driving it shortly before the home invasion. This judge believed that the jury could conclude Sauter was complicit in the robbery and burglary based on the evidence presented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1019, Charles Leonard Bennett, III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court. One judge dissented. Bennett was found guilty after a trial where the judge, not a jury, listened to the case. He received a sentence of fifteen years in prison. Bennett raised several issues on appeal. He first argued that the evidence did not prove he did not act in self-defense. The court found enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they believed the victim and the facts presented at the trial supported the conviction. Bennett also wanted to argue other issues that could lead to a new trial. However, he decided to withdraw those arguments and only focus on the issues that might lead to his case being dismissed or his sentence being changed. He signed a document saying he knew what he was doing by waiving those rights. Another issue was about restitution, which is when a person convicted of a crime has to pay the victim for their losses. Bennett contested the court's order for him to pay restitution because the required paperwork showing the victim's losses was not properly presented during the trial. Since no proof of the victim's financial losses was provided, the court agreed that the restitution order was arbitrary and sent the case back to the district court to properly determine the victim's losses. Overall, while Bennett's conviction was upheld, the court required a re-evaluation of the restitution owed to the victim. The case was sent back to the district court for this purpose, but other than that, the court found no significant errors that would change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-942, Eric Josiah Mardis appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen and Engaging in a Pattern of Criminal Offenses in Two or More Counties. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mardis was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child and received very harsh sentences of 100 years for each of the first five counts and 2 years for the last count, which were to be served one after the other. He questioned the fairness of his trial by stating that the prosecution used information from his mental health records improperly. The court found that while the trial had some errors, they did not significantly harm the fairness of the trial regarding his guilt. However, these errors did affect how the jury decided on his punishment, leading to a modification of those sentences. In his appeal, Mardis raised several concerns, including that his long sentences were cruel and unusual since he was a minor when he committed the offenses. The court noted that he was not given a sentence of life without parole and would have a chance for parole after serving part of his sentence. This meant he had an opportunity for early release based on his behavior and rehabilitation. Mardis also questioned whether there was enough evidence to support his convictions and claimed that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the testimony of a physician’s associate was allowed. The court rejected these claims, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision and that the use of some statements for medical diagnosis purposes did not violate his rights. In summary, his convictions were upheld, but due to the mistakes made during the trial, Mardis's sentences were reduced to 50 years each for the first five counts. This means he would serve a total of 52 years with the last count included. The final decision reflected the need for a fair process while recognizing the severe nature of the crimes committed. Mardis's appeal was partially successful, leading to a lesser punishment than initially given, which was seen as a fair outcome given the legal issues at hand.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-974, Donald Edward Tolliver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, requiring a new determination of the victim's losses. One judge dissented. Tolliver was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-five-year sentence, with thirty-two years suspended. He had to pay over $10,000 in restitution, which he appealed, arguing several points about his trial. He claimed the trial court made several errors. First, he believed the court should have instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses, like Assault and Battery, but the court noted that Tolliver had proclaimed his innocence and did not show he committed any lesser crime. Second, he argued the court should have included an instruction about flight, which might help explain his actions after the shooting. However, because he did not properly ask for this during the trial, the court ruled he could not bring this up on appeal. Third, he accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing this affected his chance for a fair trial. However, the court found that while some actions by the prosecution could be questionable, they didn't constitute an error that would change the outcome of the trial. In his fourth argument, Tolliver said the court didn't follow proper rules regarding restitution calculations. The appellate court agreed with this point, stating that the evidence did not clearly show the victim's actual losses. Fifth, he argued the thirty-five-year sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, finding the sentence appropriate given the crime. Finally, he claimed that all the errors combined took away his right to a fair trial, but the court noted there wasn’t enough evidence to support this claim either. Ultimately, while Tolliver's conviction and sentence were upheld, the restitution order was sent back to the lower court for further consideration of the victim's financial losses.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-580, Christopher M. Turner appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacate the Victims Compensation Assessment and remand the case for a full hearing to properly consider the required factors related to the assessment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-336, Deandre Bethel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Robbery with a Firearm, Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, and Public Intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Felony Murder and the other charges except for Robbery with a Firearm, which was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Bethel was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County for crimes related to the death of a victim during a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for murder, along with additional sentences for the other charges. During the appeal, Bethel raised several issues, arguing that there was not enough evidence for his convictions, that he should not be punished for both murder and robbery based on the same incident, and that he did not receive a fair trial for various reasons, including how the jury was instructed and what evidence was allowed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of murder and upheld that conviction. However, they agreed that having separate convictions for robbery and murder from the same act violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, so they reversed the robbery conviction. Bethel also argued that the trial court made errors in not instructing the jury about lesser offenses and in handling jury questions, but the court found these claims did not warrant a new trial. Other claims, such as the admission of jail phone calls and victim impact statements, were also rejected. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for murder and the other charges, but dismissed the robbery charge, allowing Bethel to focus his appeal on the correct aspects of his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.
In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-139, Clifford Eugene Teel appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible sodomy, and indecent exposure. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his guilty pleas and allowed him to enter new pleas for the charges. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Teel had entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of twenty years for some charges and ten years for another, all to be served together. Later, Teel wanted to change his plea because he believed he had been given wrong information about the length of his possible prison time. He thought he could get life in prison, but it turned out that the maximum punishment for his charges was actually much less. Teel's claims were that he did not get proper advice from his lawyer and that the judge did not explain the correct punishments before he accepted the plea. During a review, it was found that the trial court had indeed not informed him right about the maximum punishments he faced. The Attorney General even admitted there was a mistake in how Teel was advised. The court decided that since Teel's plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily due to the wrong advice, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter new ones concerning his charges. The original judgment and sentence from the District Court were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-124, Roach appealed her conviction for three counts of Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.
In OCCA case No. F 2012-1131, Antonio Herman Cervantes appealed his conviction for sixty-nine counts of child sexual abuse and one count of child physical abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court while ordering the correction of the sentencing documentation. One judge dissented. Cervantes was found guilty of serious crimes against children and received a significant prison sentence of forty years for each count. The court decided that some counts would be served concurrently, while others would be served consecutively. This meant that Cervantes would spend a long time in prison before being eligible for parole. Cervantes raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the jury instructions at his trial were not correct, but the court found that these instructions were adequate since there were no objections made at the trial. Therefore, the court only looked for plain errors and did not find any. Next, Cervantes claimed that many of his convictions should not have happened because they involved double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating that the evidence showed these were separate acts that could be considered individual offenses. Cervantes also thought that the trial judge did not treat him fairly. Yet, since there were no objections to any of the judge's comments during the trial, the court reviewed these comments and concluded that they did not show bias against Cervantes. He further claimed that he was denied a speedy trial. The court reviewed the reasons for trial delays, noting that they mostly stemmed from issues with his defense attorneys and were not caused by the state. The court decided that the delays were not a violation of his rights because he did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the wait. Cervantes also argued that there were mistakes in how his previous convictions were presented during the trial, but he did not raise objections when the evidence was introduced, so the court did not find any reversible error. Another point he raised was that the written judgment did not match what was said in court regarding his sentence. The court agreed that his sentencing documents needed to be corrected to reflect the proper orders given during the trial. Cervantes also suggested that his lawyer did not provide effective assistance because he failed to complain about certain aspects during the trial. However, the court found that there was no evidence of how this alleged absence of support affected the outcome of his case. He also noted instances of what he thought was misconduct by the prosecution but concluded that overall, he was not denied a fair trial due to these points. The court found that his sentences were appropriate and did not see any major errors that would warrant changing its earlier decisions. Finally, the court ruled that there was no cumulative effect of errors since no individual error was found to be significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Thus, the court affirmed the conviction while ordering the necessary corrections in the documentation of the sentence.