In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-1009, Richardson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Richardson was entitled to a hearing on his Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.
In OCCA case No. F-01-998, Brian Tyrone Scott appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including First Degree Burglary and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the kidnapping conviction but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented. Scott was found guilty of several serious crimes after a jury trial and was sentenced to many years in prison. He raised five main points in his appeal. First, he argued that his convictions for some crimes were unfair because they punished him twice for the same act. Second, he claimed there wasn’t enough proof that he intended to kidnap the victim. Third, he said he didn’t get a fair trial because he wasn’t allowed to show evidence that the victim might have lied. Fourth, he thought his total sentence was too harsh, and fifth, he wanted his judgement and sentence to correctly show his convictions. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Scott's kidnapping charge should be dismissed because it conflicted with his current charge of forcible sodomy. However, they found that the other convictions didn’t violate any laws about double punishment. The court also concluded that allowing Scott to introduce the dismissed evidence wouldn’t have helped his case and that it was okay for his sentences to be served one after the other instead of at the same time. In summary, the court affirmed most of Scott's convictions but decided to dismiss the kidnapping conviction. They ordered the district court to correct the records to make sure all information was accurate.