Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 Archives - Page 16 of 19

M-2003-513

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2004
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-513, the appellant appealed her conviction for resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the fine for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury for two charges: resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. The incident happened when a truck driver reported a car driving erratically on a highway. When officers arrived, they found the appellant behind the wheel, showing signs of intoxication with the smell of alcohol and marijuana. Initially, the appellant was compliant, but she soon became aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. When they tried to arrest her, a struggle ensued, and the appellant physically fought with the officers. After getting her under control, the officers conducted a search of her vehicle and found marijuana. Later, while being booked at the jail, they discovered she had a marijuana cigarette in her pocket. The appellant believed her sentence of twenty months for the crimes was too harsh. She requested that they serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court found that the sentences were reasonable and did not shock their conscience, so they decided to keep them consecutive. However, they agreed with the appellant that a fine of $1,000 imposed by the trial court was too high, as it exceeded what the law allowed. The maximum fine for the possession charge was actually $500 according to the law, so they reduced her fine to this amount. In summary, while the court upheld the appellant's conviction and the overall punishment, they made a small change to the fine amount.

F-2002-1546

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1546, David Jewel Newton appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. David Jewel Newton was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was given a very long sentence of 458 years in prison. He said he did not get a fair trial because there were some biased jurors. Mr. Newton’s lawyer did not properly challenge a juror who was a police officer and should not have served on the jury. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that Mr. Newton's lawyer did not do his job well in defending him. Since the jury should have been fair, the court decided that Mr. Newton deserves a new trial where he can be tried by a new set of jurors who are fair and not biased. The dissenting opinion said that the jurors who were chosen in the trial were impartial and that there was no reason to order a new trial because the rules about jurors were being misunderstood.

F-2002-1370

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 2, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1370, Oscar Lee Lamb appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Oscar Lee Lamb was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of five years in prison for each count, with the sentences running consecutively. Lamb challenged the trial court's decision on two main points. First, he argued that there was a mistake when some evidence that was not allowed in the trial was taken to the jury room during their discussions. This was seen as a problem, but the court believed it did not cause any harm to Lamb's case since the content of those pieces of evidence had already been discussed during the trial. The second point brought up by Lamb was more serious. He said that a witness who was an expert gave an opinion on whether or not the victim was telling the truth. The court agreed that this was a mistake because experts should not tell the jury what to believe about who is honest or dishonest. This kind of testimony can really affect the jury's decision, particularly when both sides disagree strongly about what happened. Since the court thought the expert's testimony could have made a difference in how the jury viewed the case, they decided that Lamb should have a new trial. Therefore, the previous court's decision was overturned, and the case was sent back for another trial.

S-2003-445

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2003
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2003-445, the State appealed the decision regarding Joey Dean Taylor's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case began when Joey Dean Taylor was a passenger in a pickup truck that was stopped by a deputy for speeding. During the stop, the deputy asked both the driver and Taylor if he could search them. The driver consented, but Taylor said yes to a pat-down search. After the search, the deputy found knives and a syringe in Taylor's pocket. Taylor was later arrested when methamphetamine was discovered in his hand at the jail. The lower court found that Taylor did not truly consent to the search, and the higher court agreed that the State did not provide enough evidence to show the consent was voluntary. They ruled that the earlier decisions were correct, and thus, they affirmed the lower court's ruling.

RE 2002-1124

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 22, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.

F-2002-537

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 21, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.

RE 2002-1245

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2003
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.

F 2002-1116

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 14, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.

F 2002-1041

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 7, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1041, Carlos Gomez Modesto appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine and Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming Count 2. One judge dissented. The case started when Modesto was found guilty in an earlier trial of trafficking both methamphetamine and cocaine. The jury decided his punishment for methamphetamine should be ten years and a fine of $50,000, and for cocaine, ten years and a fine of $25,000. However, during sentencing, the judge changed the punishment for methamphetamine to just four years, allowing both counts to run at the same time. Modesto raised several issues during his appeal, challenging the fairness of the trial. He claimed that: 1. The trial court didn't properly handle his request to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which is when a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. 2. He argued that having two convictions seemed unfair, like getting punished twice for the same wrongdoing. 3. He believed that the evidence presented was not enough to support his convictions. 4. Modesto complained about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, suggesting they were harmful and unfair. 5. He pointed out that some decisions made by the trial court regarding evidence were wrong, which affected his right to a fair trial. After looking carefully at all the facts and arguments, the court agreed with Modesto on some points. They found that his two convictions did violate the rule against double punishment, so they decided to reverse the conviction for methamphetamine and instruct the lower court to dismiss that charge. However, they determined there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction for cocaine and decided to affirm that part. The court also recognized that the prosecutor's comparison of Modesto to a notorious criminal was inappropriate, but they concluded it wasn’t enough to change the trial's outcome. Lastly, although there were some mistakes in handling evidence, they decided those were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial. In summary, the court's final ruling was that Modesto's conviction for trafficking cocaine would stand, while the conviction for methamphetamine was reversed and dismissed.

F-2002-548

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 6, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-548, Brian Wheatley Fire appealed his conviction for seven counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand his case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Brian Wheatley Fire was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County of multiple counts of a serious crime. The jury recommended he serve twenty years in prison for each count, and the judge ordered the sentences to be served one after the other, meaning he would spend many years in prison. After getting convicted, Brian Wheatley Fire raised several issues, called propositions of error, which he believed showed he did not get a fair trial. These were a set of complaints about how the trial went and how evidence was presented. The court looked at the arguments made by Brian's side. One important issue was that a social worker and a school counselor said they believed the child involved was telling the truth, which was a problem. These statements could influence how the jury viewed the witness's honesty. The law says that it is up to the jury to decide if someone is telling the truth, and when someone who is not a trial expert vouches for a witness's truthfulness, it can lead to unfairness in the trial. Another issue was related to what happened during questioning. The prosecutor brought up that Brian, after being arrested, didn't speak to police. This should not have happened because it could make people think less of him for not speaking up right away. The law protects people from being judged negatively for choosing to stay silent after being arrested. Brian's silence was used against him repeatedly in questions by the prosecutor and was mentioned again in final remarks. The court found that these two problems together made it impossible for Brian to have a fair trial. They believed that the errors were serious enough to reverse the guilty decision and send the case back for a new trial where these mistakes wouldn't happen again. In conclusion, Brian Wheatley Fire's conviction was overturned, and his case was sent back for a new trial because the errors during his first trial compromised his right to a fair trial.

F 2002-772

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

M-2002-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 22, 2003
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1146, Michael Lee Vickery appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to three months of incarceration, giving credit for time served. One judge dissented regarding the modification.

C-2002-1188

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for various crimes related to drug possession and firearm offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for selling drugs. One judge dissented and suggested that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

C-2002-1190

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including possession of controlled substances and shooting with intent to kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed the conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

C-2002-1191

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 10, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences but reversed one specific conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for illegal activities. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The petitioner had pled guilty to various charges in three different cases. These included serious charges like possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, gun-related offenses, and other crimes. After he was sentenced, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The court held a hearing to consider this request but denied it. The sentences the petitioner received added up to a very long total of 223 years, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, the petitioner presented several reasons he felt the court made mistakes. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence for some of his guilty pleas to be accepted. After looking into the facts, the court disagreed on some counts, saying there was enough evidence for certain guilty pleas, but accepted the petitioner’s claim that he should not have been convicted for maintaining a vehicle for drug activities. In another part of his argument, the petitioner claimed that his punishments were too much and that he did not understand his pleas. The court found that he did understand what he was doing and therefore, his guilty pleas were valid. Overall, the court upheld most of the judgments but agreed with the petitioner on one specific charge, reversing that conviction. The court ordered the case to go back for further actions that align with its decision. One judge thought sentences should be served together instead of separately, showing that there were different opinions even in the court's decision.

F-2002-552

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 10, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-552, Jack Leroy Helms appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Obscene Pictures of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Helms's conviction but to modify his sentence to two years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Helms was tried by a jury and found guilty of having illegal pictures of minors. The trial took place in Jefferson County. The jury recommended a 15-year sentence, and the trial judge sentenced Helms accordingly. However, Helms argued that he should have been charged under a different law that applied specifically to possession of child pornography, which would result in a shorter sentence. The court agreed that Helms should have been charged under the more specific statute, but they affirmed his conviction. They also decided that his imprisonment sentence should be reduced to two years instead of the original 15 years. Helms raised several issues during his appeal, claiming that he was unfairly treated during the trial, that there wasn't enough evidence against him, and that his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold his conviction, as there were witnesses and online activities that indicated he had access to the illegal pictures. In the end, Helms's conviction was upheld, but changes were made to the judgment to show he was convicted under the correct law and his sentence was adjusted to be less severe. The decision allowed some correction but ultimately found in favor of the prosecution's case against Helms.

F 2003-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-648, Remigio Rivas appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences from 100 years to 75 years for each count. One judge dissented.

F 2002-532

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 3, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.

F-2002-653

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.

C 2002-1379

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2002-1379, the petitioner appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the petitioner's application to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the petitioner entered a guilty plea to the crime of kidnapping. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison as part of a plea agreement. However, shortly after, the petitioner wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He filed a motion for this, but during the hearing, he was not present, even though he had the right to be there. His lawyer asked the court to move forward without him, believing it was best since the petitioner was already in custody. The court looked at whether the absence of the petitioner from this critical hearing was a serious mistake. The petitioner did not agree to waive his right to be present, which the court pointed out as important. The judges discussed that being absent from such a crucial part of the trial could lead to unfair treatment. While the State argued that the absence was not a big deal and didn't affect the outcome, the court disagreed. They emphasized that this hearing was meant to gather facts and needed the petitioner's presence. The court found that merely saying the absence was harmless was not enough in this case. The lawyer who represented the petitioner at the hearing did not provide evidence or firsthand statements from the petitioner, only mentioning a letter the petitioner had written earlier. The court raised concerns that the lawyer might not have properly consulted with the petitioner about not attending the hearing. Since the petitioner claimed he entered the plea without properly thinking it over and believed he had a valid defense, the case could not fall under rules that would let the court dismiss his request without consideration. The judges decided that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing had been violated because he was not there to fully participate and because his lawyer did not act effectively for him in this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the case should go back to the district court to ensure the petitioner can have a complete hearing on his wish to withdraw his guilty plea.

F-2002-323

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 28, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-323, David Dean Wichita appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. The case focused on whether Wichita had properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence in the record to show that he understood and agreed to give up this important right. The State agreed that this was a mistake and that the case needed to be looked at again. The judges explained that a person must clearly show they are giving up their right to a jury trial. There was no proof in the record that Wichita made this choice himself or that he did it knowingly and wisely. Because of this error, the judges decided that Wichita should have a new trial.

C-2003-356

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 23, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-356, Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and granted his writ for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas. One judge dissented, arguing that the motion to withdraw was filed too late and should be dismissed.

F-2001-1514

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

F-2002-1509

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1509, Dontrell Maurice Baird appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of controlled dangerous substances, and possession of CDS without a tax stamp, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but required resentencing on the trafficking and possession charges, while upholding the sentence for the possession of drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Baird was convicted in the District Court of Payne County on multiple drug-related charges. The jury sentenced him to a total of 82 years in prison across four counts, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. However, Baird appealed on several grounds, claiming that his right to due process was violated due to incorrect jury instructions on punishment, that evidence for some charges wasn't sufficient, and that his sentences were excessive. The court found that errors in the jury instructions affected the punishment range for three of the counts. Both Baird and the State agreed that the jury was not properly informed about the range of penalties for trafficking in cocaine base, possession of marijuana, and possession of CDS without a tax stamp. Baird's prior convictions complicated the appropriate classification of his current offenses, leading to confusion that the jury was not guided through properly. The court established that it would have been correct for the jury to be told about the proper punishment ranges, based on Baird's prior crimes. Given these mistakes in the instructions, the court decided to send the case back for resentencing on those counts without requiring a new trial. Despite Baird's claims that he was deprived of effective legal counsel, the court ruled that the issues raised concerning the jury instructions were enough to grant leniency in this case. The other claims, focusing on the sufficiency of evidence and whether the cumulative errors affected the trial's fairness, were found not to necessitate any further relief. Thus, the court upheld Baird's convictions but needed to correct the sentencing errors related to trafficking and possession charges, while confirming the sentence for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia as appropriate.

F 2001-1497

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 12, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.