Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 142.18 Archives

C-2016-813

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 25, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

C-2012-1154

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 11, 2013
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-1154, Charles D. North appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant North's request to withdraw his guilty pleas due to the fact that he was denied his right to have a lawyer present during the hearing on this motion. North also challenged the legality of his sentences for two other counts. The court agreed that those sentences exceeded what was allowed by law. Therefore, they vacated the illegal sentences and sent the case back to the lower court for North to have new counsel and a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No one dissented.

RE-2011-277

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 10, 2012
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-277, Johnson appealed his conviction for Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated an additional Victim Compensation Assessment. Johnson dissented. The case began when Johnson entered a guilty plea on August 3, 2005, and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with six months of that sentence being served in jail and the rest suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve it unless he broke the law again. He was also fined and had to pay a fee for victim compensation to help those who had been hurt by crimes. Later, in November 2005, the State, which is like the government in this case, claimed Johnson broke his probation by getting into trouble again, which included resisting arrest and having drugs. Because of this, on March 10, 2006, the court decided to make him serve eighteen months of his suspended sentence. Johnson continued to have problems. He was charged with more crimes in 2008, including stealing from a house and having drugs. He went through a special program to help people with drug problems and successfully finished it. In June 2010, the court dismissed some applications to revoke his probation because of progress he made. However, on March 1, 2011, the State filed another application saying Johnson broke the rules again, claiming he tried to escape from the police, attacked a police officer, and had more drugs. A hearing was held on March 14, 2011, where the judge decided to revoke ninety months of Johnson's suspended sentence. Johnson argued in his appeal that the judge was wrong to make him pay another victim compensation fee during the revocation hearing. He believed this fee could only be applied when someone was first convicted, and since the revocation wasn't a new conviction, he shouldn’t have to pay it again. The State said it didn’t matter since the record only showed the original fee, but Johnson insisted the extra fee should be removed. The court agreed with Johnson, explaining that a victim compensation fee should only be applied at the time of the original sentencing, not at a revocation hearing. Therefore, the court decided to remove the $200 fee that was added during the revocation. In his final point, Johnson asked the court to lessen the time he had to serve because he had made improvements while on probation. However, the court found that the judge in charge did not abuse his discretion in deciding how long to revoke Johnson's suspended sentence. Overall, the court confirmed the revocation of Johnson’s sentence but dismissed the new Victim Compensation fee.

F 2010-422

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-422, Kelsey Danielle Dodson appealed her conviction for child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the imposed fine and assessments. One judge dissented. Kelsey was tried by a jury for two crimes: child abuse by injury and child neglect. The jury found her not guilty of child abuse but guilty of child neglect. They decided she should go to prison for twenty years. Kelsey thought this punishment was too harsh and believed that the court made mistakes by adding fines not decided by the jury. Kelsey argued four main points in her appeal. First, she felt that twenty years in prison was excessive. Second, she thought that the court wrongly imposed a fine without the jury saying it should. Third, she claimed that the court didn't follow the rules when it decided she needed to pay for victim compensation. Fourth, she said the trial court should not have made her pay into a court fund since it was not within its authority. The appellate court looked closely at what Kelsey brought up. They agreed that the twenty-year prison sentence was appropriate for this kind of crime. They found no reason to change that part of the judgment. However, they sided with Kelsey concerning the fines and assessments. The court ruled that the fine imposed by the trial court should be removed because it didn’t match the jury's decision. The court also pointed out that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors required for assessing victim compensation, so that assessment was canceled too. Overall, the court decided that Kelsey would keep her sentence of twenty years in prison, but any additional fines or assessments imposed upon her were removed. The decision was modified to reflect these changes. One judge on the court disagreed with the decision to vacate the victim compensation assessment, arguing that since Kelsey did not object during the trial, she should not have been able to appeal it. This dissenting opinion highlighted that the trial court had sufficient evidence related to the assessment, given that they received a pre-sentence investigation report. In summary, Kelsey’s prison sentence was upheld, but the extra financial penalties were dropped, leading to a mix of agreement and disagreement among the judges involved in the case.

F 2003-816

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 16, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-816, John Carl Fike appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction for possession of methamphetamine should be reversed and dismissed, but the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana were upheld. One member of the court dissented. John Carl Fike was tried and found guilty by a jury for having cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He was sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine and methamphetamine, with fines, and six months in jail for marijuana, also with a fine. Fike argued that the roadblock where he was stopped was not legal, that he was held unlawfully, and that evidence against him was not properly handled. He also felt his punishments were too harsh and there were multiple errors during his trial that made it unfair. The court looked at these claims. They determined that the roadblock was done correctly. They said that Fike was not held unlawfully and that the evidence was accepted correctly, so those claims didn't change the outcome. However, they found that Fike could not be punished for both cocaine and methamphetamine under the law, which is called double jeopardy. So, they reversed the conviction for methamphetamine. The other sentences were deemed acceptable by the court, which also said he was treated fairly in regards to his trial. Overall, the court upheld the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana but ended the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the stop and search of Fike were not done properly.