Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8

RE-2006-135

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-135

RE-2005-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-863

F-2004-1188

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1188, Daniel Allen Moore appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing due to a jury instruction error. One judge dissented. On June 9, 2003, Daniel Allen Moore shot 24-year-old Garade Jean Girsback in front of a mobile home where she was babysitting. Girsback was related to Moore's wife and had often lived with their family. That evening, Moore hosted a barbecue and was drinking. Witnesses heard him express anger towards Girsback and make threats about killing her. After becoming upset during their conversation, Moore accidentally fired his gun, hitting Girsback. Moore and his wife left without trying to help, and he disposed of the gun. Later, he told a neighbor it was an accident and claimed he only meant to scare Girsback. The main question during the trial was whether Moore had intended to kill Girsback or whether her death was due to recklessness or negligence. The court found that there was an error because the jury was not properly informed about the punishment options for first-degree murder, specifically failing to instruct that life with the possibility of parole was an option. The state agreed this instruction was missed, but they argued it did not affect the outcome because the defense had mentioned the options during closing arguments. The court decided that the jury's confusion could have influenced their decision, especially since they only deliberated briefly before returning a verdict and sentencing Moore to life without parole. Because of this, the case was sent back for a new sentencing hearing with the correct instructions provided to the jury. Additionally, the court addressed other claims by Moore, like the admission of his statements to police. It concluded these statements were allowed for impeachment purposes and did not violate his rights, as they were spontaneous comments. The defendant also argued there was insufficient evidence and that various errors during trial warranted a different outcome, but the court found that while there were errors, they did not combine to affect the fairness of the trial significantly. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but required that the sentencing be done again with proper jury instructions about the punishments available to them.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1188

F-2004-1229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1229, Jesse Allen Cheshire appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Allen Cheshire was found guilty by a jury of two charges of Child Sexual Abuse in a case from Bryan County. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison for each charge, and these sentences would be served one after the other. Cheshire argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed the crimes. He believed that the evidence was inconsistent and didn't clearly show he was guilty. He claimed this meant his constitutional rights were violated. He also stated that his rights were infringed because two witnesses were allowed to share what the alleged victims said without those children testifying in court. According to the law, he should have been able to confront his accusers directly, which he argued did not happen. Cheshire claimed that the state’s witnesses unfairly supported the credibility of the children’s accusations against him. He also mentioned that a letter from a doctor supporting his defense was wrongly kept out of trial, while other evidence was accepted. After looking at all the ideas presented by Cheshire and the details of the case, the court found that the issue regarding hearsay—where the children’s statements were allowed without them being present—was a serious error. They concluded that this error was not harmless and could have affected the outcome of the trial. They noted that there was some confusion during the case, including the children initially naming someone else as the abuser before changing their statements. Because of this significant issue, the court reversed Cheshire's convictions and ordered a new trial to take place.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1229

F 2005-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-281

M 2005-0404

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0404

F 2004-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-866, Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial in two of the three related cases, while affirming the conviction in the third case. One judge dissented. Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for offenses related to shooting at people, which included Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting with Intent to Kill. The jury gave him a total of twelve years for the two Assault and Battery charges and twenty-five years for the shooting charge, which were to be served one after the other. Ricky raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, like not following the law to instruct the jury correctly on the charges. He claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions and that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. He also stated the prosecutor did wrong things during the trial and that some evidence shouldn't have been allowed. Additionally, he felt the instructions given to the jury about sentencing were confusing and that all the mistakes made during the trial added up to make it unfair for him. After looking closely at what Ricky said and the court records, the court agreed that he deserved a new trial for the Assault and Battery charges because the jury was wrongly instructed about the law. But for the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, the court thought the evidence was enough to support that conviction, so they upheld it. The court decided that many of Ricky's claims about mistakes during the trial did not change the outcome for the Shooting charge, so it stayed as is. However, since there was a legal mistake about the Assault and Battery charges, those were thrown out, and he was ordered to be tried again. In conclusion, the final decision was to keep the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and to conduct new trials for the other two charges.

Continue ReadingF 2004-866

F-2005-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-855, Fomby appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Fomby was found guilty of several crimes in Comanche County. He received a long sentence of sixty years for each burglary, two years for the possession of methamphetamine, and ten years for concealing stolen property. These sentences were to be served one after the other, making the total time very long. Fomby claimed that there were many mistakes during his trial. He said the court wrongly changed a standard instruction by adding details about his past sentences, which might have influenced the jury. He also mentioned that the prosecutor said he was no longer considered innocent before the trial even concluded, which he felt was unfair. Furthermore, he argued that the court allowed evidence of other crimes unfairly, and he did not get a fair hearing for new charges that were added. The appeal court looked at all these claims. They agreed that the change in jury instruction was a mistake and the prosecutor's comments on Fomby's innocence were improper. Because of these two main points, the court decided to change his sentences from sixty years each to thirty years to be served together instead of one after the other. They concluded that some of Fomby’s other arguments did not have enough merit to change the outcome of the case. For example, they found there was enough evidence to show he knowingly hid stolen items and had possession of methamphetamine. In the end, most of Fomby's convictions were upheld, but his sentences were significantly reduced to make them less severe. One judge did not agree with this modification, believing the original sentences were justified given Fomby’s serious crimes and history.

Continue ReadingF-2005-855

C-2005-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1198, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal. One member dissented. The case involved a man named Brad Daniel Richards who pleaded guilty to two charges: burglary and concealing stolen property. He received a sentence of seven years in prison for the burglary and a five-year suspended sentence for the other charge. After his conviction, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas because he felt that his lawyer did not represent him well during the hearing where he tried to withdraw his plea. Richards argued that his attorney had a conflict of interest. During the hearing to withdraw his plea, the attorney mentioned that there could be an issue with his previous representation but did not argue on Richards' behalf. The court noted that a lawyer should provide good help to their client, especially at this critical stage of the process. The court looked closely at whether Richards' lawyer's conflict of interest affected his case. They pointed out that Richards had not testified, and his lawyer did not really support his claims. Because of this, the court could not make a clear decision about whether Richards should be allowed to withdraw his plea. In the end, the court granted Richards' request to review the original decision and said he deserves a new hearing with a different lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1198

C-2005-1208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1208

F-2003-1421

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1421

RE-2005-536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-536

F 2005-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.

Continue ReadingF 2005-651

F 2005-288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-288, George Luther Carter, III appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Carter was accused of sexually abusing a child and was found guilty by a jury. They decided he should spend thirty years in prison for this crime. After the trial, Carter appealed, arguing that the trial court made several mistakes. Carter's main reasons for appealing included that the court should not have allowed evidence of other alleged crimes he had committed, and that the use of a videotape during the trial was not fair. He also believed the verdict was not supported well by the evidence. The court looked closely at these points and decided that admitting the evidence of the other alleged crime was a mistake. The evidence did not clearly connect to the case at hand and could have unfairly influenced the jury's decision. Since the court was not sure that this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial, they decided to grant Carter a new trial. In summary, Carter’s conviction was reversed because the trial court allowed improper evidence that could have affected the jury's verdict. The remaining arguments did not need to be discussed since the first point was enough for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2005-288

F-2004-1147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1147, James Earl Ware appealed his conviction for first-degree rape and lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for first-degree rape but reverse the conviction for lewd molestation with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. The case involved accusations made by a girl named D.P. who testified that Ware had molested and raped her when she was 12 years old. During the trial, D.P. shared experiences of how Ware touched her inappropriately multiple times, with one incident where he penetrated her. Her brother also testified that he saw Ware kissing D.P. Ware denied the allegations and claimed that D.P. and her brother were lying about him. He argued that the evidence presented was not strong enough to prove he was guilty. However, the trial judge found D.P.'s testimony credible and believed Ware did commit the acts he was accused of, despite saying that she initially had doubts. The court noted that Ware could not challenge the evidence because he presented his defense after listening to the prosecution's case. It was decided that, while the evidence was strong enough to uphold the first-degree rape conviction, the lewd molestation charge did not have enough proof to support a guilty verdict. Therefore, the conviction for lewd molestation was dismissed, while the conviction for first-degree rape was confirmed.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1147

F 2005-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-41, James Nye appealed his conviction for Manufacture or Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. James Nye was found guilty by a jury in a district court in Grady County. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixty years for his crime. After the trial, Nye believed there were problems that made his trial unfair, so he appealed the decision. He raised six main reasons for his appeal: 1. He said there wasn't enough good evidence to prove he did the crime based on what his co-defendant said. 2. He thought the court made mistakes by allowing too much evidence that helped the co-defendant's story without being necessary. 3. He claimed that the people working for the state did things that were unfair and made the jury give him a harsher sentence. 4. He felt that some evidence presented was not related to the case and led to a higher sentence than it should have been. 5. He argued that the sentence he got was too harsh. 6. Finally, he believed that all these problems combined made the trial not fair. After looking at the evidence and the reasons presented by Nye, the court agreed that his conviction should not be changed because there was enough evidence to support the decision. However, they also found that there were issues in the trial that affected his sentence. The court recognized that while some mistakes were made, they ultimately did not affect the conviction itself. The court highlighted that the prosecutor said things that should not have been said and presented evidence that was prejudicial. The judge noted that bringing up Nye’s past in court and how long he spent in jail might have made the jury unfairly biased against him. Because of these mistakes and the belief that the original sentence was excessive, the court changed the sentence from sixty years to a new sentence of twenty years. The judges felt that this new sentence was a fairer punishment for the crime Nye committed. One judge disagreed with the amount the sentence was lowered to, suggesting it should be reduced to thirty-five years instead. In summary, James Nye's conviction is upheld, but he will now serve twenty years in prison instead of sixty because of errors made in the trial.

Continue ReadingF 2005-41

RE-2005-355

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-355, Bobby Ray Wyles, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial judge wrongly ordered Wyles’ sentences to run consecutively with a later sentence instead of concurrently, which violated the original sentencing agreements. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-355

PR-2006-120

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PR

In OCCA case No. PR-2006-120, a petitioner appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (methamphetamine) and driving without seatbelts. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's request for relief in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner was charged with possessing methamphetamine and driving without a seatbelt. She initially agreed to a plea deal with the state, which involved accepting guilt for the drug charge and a fine for the seatbelt violation. However, when the petitioner refused to follow through with the state’s conditions for the plea, she attempted to enter a non-negotiated or blind guilty plea. The judge refused to accept her blind plea and insisted she proceed to trial, stating she did not have an absolute right to plead guilty. The petitioner believed she should be allowed to enter her guilty plea without the state’s conditions. This disagreement led her to file a petition with the court seeking orders to either allow her to plead guilty or to prevent the judge from forcing her to go to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court found that the petitioner had a clear legal right to have her guilty plea accepted if it met the necessary legal requirements. The court noted that it was a mistake for the judge to reject her plea without evaluating whether it was voluntary and if there was a factual basis for it. The court granted part of the petitioner’s request by directing the district court judge to conduct a hearing on her blind plea and accept it if it correctly fulfilled the legal standards. However, the court denied her request to have her plea regarding the seatbelt violation accepted, as that plea required the judge’s approval. The dissenting judge expressed concerns about whether the petitioner had truly shown that she was being harmed by the trial court's refusal to accept her plea, suggesting that any challenges to a guilty plea rejection should typically be taken up in direct appeals rather than with this type of petition. The dissenting judge also supported the trial judge's discretion, arguing that the right to a jury trial must be upheld. In summary, the court ruled that the petitioner should be given a chance to enter her guilty plea under the law, but that her plea regarding the seatbelt violation did not have to be accepted.

Continue ReadingPR-2006-120

C-2005-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-398, Elisa Nielson appealed her conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of 16. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented from the decision. Elisa Nielson had entered a guilty plea for her crime on February 7, 2005. The judge sentenced her to twenty years in prison, but she would only have to serve ten years if she followed certain rules. Nielson later wanted to take back her guilty plea because she thought there was confusion about what her sentence would be. She argued that a deal was made where she wouldn't be sentenced to more than five years in prison, but when it came time for sentencing, the judge did not follow that recommendation. Nielson brought her case to a higher court, saying that the trial judge should have let her change her mind about the guilty plea before sentencing. The higher court looked at all the facts and agreed with her. They found that the confusion about the plea meant she should have been allowed to withdraw it. The court decided Nielson's issue about the sentence was not relevant after they allowed her to withdraw her plea. So, they granted her request and sent the case back to the lower court to work things out according to their ruling. One judge disagreed and said that Nielson understood what she was doing when she accepted her guilty plea. He thought the agreement was clear and that the lower court had done everything correctly. He would not have granted her appeal.

Continue ReadingC-2005-398

F-2005-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2005-129

M 2005-0332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0332

M 2005-0332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0332

C 2005-628

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2005-628, Roscoe Dansby appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Obtaining Money by Means of a False Check. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. The court found that Dansby was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage of the process because his attorney had a conflict of interest. Thus, the court remanded the case for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and ordered that a conflict-free counsel be appointed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC 2005-628

F-2004-971

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.

Continue ReadingF-2004-971

F-2004-688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-688, Arthur Gerald Graves appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial with effective counsel. One judge dissented. Graves was convicted after a non-jury trial where he was found to have drugs in his possession. The police had noticed a lot of people going in and out of a hotel room and decided to investigate. When the police knocked on the door and were let in, Graves showed up with a bag in his hand. This made the officers suspicious. They arrested him and found drugs and cash on him. Graves claimed that the police did not have a good reason to search him or arrest him. He argued he was just carrying his keys when he knocked on the door. However, the trial court did not agree with him and allowed the evidence found to be used against him in court. During the appeal, Graves's main argument was that he did not receive good help from his lawyers. The court found that his lawyers did not do their job well, which affected the trial's outcome. They had three different attorneys, and their lack of teamwork hurt his defense. The judges noted that the defense lawyers failed to present important evidence that could have helped Graves and that they made some arguments that did not relate to the case. The court stated that the mistakes made by Graves's lawyers made it hard to trust the trial's results. Because of this, they decided that Graves deserved another chance to have a proper trial with the right legal help. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-688