Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8

C-2002-633

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-633, Russell Snoe appealed his conviction for lewd and indecent proposal to a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Snoe's petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court. One judge dissented. Snoe had entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, where he was sentenced to five years for one charge and one year for the other, with the sentences to be served at the same time if he completed a certain program. Later, Snoe wanted to take back his guilty plea and sent a letter to the court. The court held a hearing but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Snoe argued that he did not have a fair chance because his lawyer did not help him correctly and that he was not given the right information about what the punishment could be. The court reviewed Snoe's case and agreed that he had not been clearly informed about his potential punishment. This mistake made his plea not valid. Since he had taken the plea thinking he faced a worse punishment than he actually could have, the court decided he needed another chance. As a result, the court reversed his earlier decision and allowed him to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2002-633

F-2002-470

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-470, Dearel Oglesby appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to 20 years in prison with a $20,000 fine. One judge dissented. Dearel Oglesby was found guilty by a jury of selling methamphetamine. He was sentenced to life in prison, which he believed was too harsh. Oglesby raised four main issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial allowed some evidence that should not have been included according to the state’s rules. The court found that even though one lab report was late, it was not a major issue since it didn't harm Oglesby’s case. Second, Oglesby argued that he did not get his right to a preliminary hearing, but the court found there was enough evidence to prove there might have been a crime. Third, he was concerned that the jury saw evidence about other drug sales he allegedly made, which he thought was unfair. The court noted that while some of this evidence was not really necessary, the prosecutor did not act on it inappropriately. Finally, Oglesby spoke about a witness being added during the trial, but the court felt that was handled correctly since it wasn’t a key part of the case. The judges found that Oglesby’s punishment was extreme considering the small amount of drugs involved, so they decided to reduce his sentence instead of just keeping the life sentence. This decision was met with some disagreement from one judge, who thought the evidence was relevant and that the original sentence should stay as is.

Continue ReadingF-2002-470

F-2001-1372

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1372

F-2001-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2001-528

F-2002-9

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-9, Amy Michelle Green appealed her conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Amy was found guilty after a trial where the jury decided that she was guilty of having illegal drugs and drug-related items. The jury decided her punishment should be ten years in prison for the drugs and one year for the drug paraphernalia. The judge in the trial court ordered that she serve these sentences one after the other, making it a total of eleven years. Amy argued that there were mistakes made during her trial that made her punishment too severe. One big issue was that a day planner with a graphic photo of her was accepted as evidence, even though it was meant to prove she controlled the hotel room where it was found. She argued that the planner was unfair and should not have been used against her since other personal items also proved her control over the room. The court agreed that the day planner shouldn't have been used to influence the jury because it could lead to unfair judgment against her. They believed that the mistakes in her trial did affect the outcome, leading to an excessive sentence. Therefore, they changed her sentence to six years for the controlled substance charge to be served at the same time as her one-year sentence for the paraphernalia. Overall, the court kept her conviction but lessened the time she had to serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2002-9

F-2001-1165

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1165, Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences. One judge dissented. Chapman was found guilty of several serious charges, including first-degree rape, rape by instrumentation, kidnapping, and drug-related offenses in Logan County. He was given lengthy prison sentences, amounting to a total of 480 years. Chapman raised many reasons to challenge his convictions and sentences. He argued that the evidence presented against him was unfairly prejudicial, and he claimed that his lawyer's comments during the trial hurt his case. Chapman also thought that the jury's verdicts for some of the sexual crimes were not allowed under the law because they were too similar. He felt that the trial court did not allow enough time for his lawyer to prepare and that his sentences were too harsh. The court examined all the evidence and arguments. They found no reason to overturn the convictions but decided that some of the sentences should be changed. The judges agreed that the evidence from other crimes was relevant and that it did not unfairly influence the jury. They believed that the sentences for the rape charges were too long and changed them to life imprisonment, while still upholding the other sentences. The court concluded that there were no overall errors that would change the outcome of the trial, and they affirmed most of the decisions made by the lower court. However, one judge disagreed with the modification of the sentences, believing that the jury's decisions on the punishments were justified given the severity of the crimes Chapman committed.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1165

F 2001-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-668

F-2001-1445

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1445, John Wesley Dickson appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Dickson was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs after he had been convicted of a crime before. The jury decided that he should go to prison for forty years. Dickson thought this was too harsh and took his case to a higher court for a review. The higher court looked at all the evidence, including what happened in the original trial. The judges found that while the forty-year sentence was lawful, the remarks made by the prosecutor during the sentencing could have influenced the jury too much. The prosecutor's comments on what they thought was an appropriate punishment were seen as quite problematic. The court believed that the sentence given shocked their sense of fairness, which is a key reason for modifying sentences. Despite being allowed to recommend sentences, the prosecutor should have kept personal views out of their statements to avoid bias in the jury's decisions. Finally, the court decided to change the sentence from forty years to twenty years. They pointed out that the rules at the time of the crime did not allow applying changes in law retroactively to make the punishment lighter. Thus, only the laws that were in place when Dickson committed the crime could be applied to him. In conclusion, the court confirmed Dickson’s conviction but found the original sentence too severe, leading to a new sentence of twenty years in prison. One judge disagreed with the change in sentence, feeling that the jury's and prosecutor’s actions were acceptable.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1445

RE-2001-1375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-1375

F 2002-1339

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1339

F 2001-999

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.

Continue ReadingF 2001-999

F-2001-122

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.

Continue ReadingF-2001-122

F-2001-106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-106, Billy Mack Downey appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, sending the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. Billy Mack Downey was convicted of murder by a jury in Carter County. He was sentenced to forty years in prison. Downey appealed his conviction, raising thirteen different complaints about how the trial was conducted and claims that he did not receive a fair trial. Here are the main issues Downey raised in his appeal: 1. He argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow victim impact evidence during the trial, which should only be presented during the sentencing phase. 2. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly increased the credibility of its main witnesses. 3. Downey believed his father should have been allowed to testify, and that the prosecutor took advantage of this situation during closing arguments. 4. He also said the prosecutor acted improperly in a way that affected his chance for a fair trial. 5. Downey filed a motion for a new trial, which he claimed the trial court incorrectly denied. 6. He pointed out errors in how the State impeached one of his defense witnesses. 7. Downey thought the trial judge wrongly instructed the jury on matters related to the law and the testimonies of his co-defendants. 8. He believed certain comments from the judge during the trial may have influenced the jury’s opinion about his guilt. 9. Downey felt he should have been told that his co-defendants were accomplices, which could have affected how the jury viewed their testimonies. 10. He claimed the judge gave an instruction during closing arguments that confused the jury. 11. Downey argued that the collection of errors during the trial ultimately deprived him of a fair verdict. 12. He mentioned the judge wrongly ordered him to pay restitution without sufficient evidence of loss. After reviewing the evidence and considering all of Downey's claims, the court found that he had been deprived of a fair trial due to multiple serious errors. Particularly, it highlighted the combined effect of several of the errors as being significantly damaging to Downey's case. The court specifically identified that the trial court should not have allowed victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial and agreed that Downey was wrongly denied the opportunity to have his father testify. The court believed these issues could have changed the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court overturned the original decision and ordered that a new trial be held for Downey, where he would have the chance to address these issues. This ruling aimed to ensure that he could receive a fair trial as guaranteed to him under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2001-106

F-2001-916

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-916, Gilda Marie Schoonover appealed her conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gilda and her husband were charged with the murder of their adopted child, Benjamin, who was just over two years old. The trial took place with a jury, and both Gilda and her husband were found guilty. They were sentenced to life in prison based on the jury's recommendation. During the trial, there were several problems that Gilda highlighted as reasons for her appeal. First, she argued it was wrong for the jury to consider different ways to blame her. They were told that it was possible she either directly hurt the child or allowed her husband to hurt him. Gilda felt that allowing these different ideas confused the jury. She also pointed out that the court did not let the defense see all the evidence it needed, like a written statement from another person who might have helped their case. Furthermore, Gilda was unhappy about how the court allowed some information about past contacts with child services to be used against her. The jury couldn’t be sure which theory they believed—the one where Gilda hurt the child or the one where she let her husband hurt him. The court agreed that the evidence provided did not clearly show that she personally allowed the abuse or knew it was going to happen. Because of these issues, the court decided that Gilda deserved a new trial to ensure she had a fair chance to defend herself. In summary, the court found errors in the trial process, particularly in how the jury was instructed and the evidence presented. Gilda's conviction was overturned, and she was given another chance to have her case heard.

Continue ReadingF-2001-916

F-2001-558

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2001-558

F-2001-637

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.

Continue ReadingF-2001-637

F-2001-655

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2001-655

F 2001-378

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-378, Phillip Scott Coulter appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Phillip Scott Coulter was found guilty by a jury in a case about serious allegations of wrongdoing involving children. The trial happened in Kingfisher County, and the jury decided to give him a sentence of five years for each count. These sentences would be served one after the other. Coulter did not agree with the decision and asked the court to review the case. He raised several points to argue why the decision should be overturned. First, he said that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support his conviction. He believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he acted inappropriately with any child. Next, he claimed that the prosecutor used improper tactics during the trial that made it unfair. He also said that his lawyer did not represent him well and this made it harder for him to defend himself in court. Lastly, he pointed out that he was not allowed to properly question one of the witnesses about things that had happened to her before, which he believed was important for his defense. After looking at all these arguments and the evidence presented during the trial, the court agreed that one of Coulter's rights was not respected. Specifically, they ruled that he was not allowed to question the witness in a way that could show whether she was being honest. This was important because it affected the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the conviction and said there would have to be a new trial. Since they were reversing the case based on this issue, they did not need to rule on the other arguments Coulter had made. In summary, the court found that Coulter's right to confront and question his accuser was not honored, leading to their decision to grant him a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-378

F-2001-264

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-264, Gavin Lee Hawkins appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for one count and modify the sentence for the other count. One judge dissented. Gavin Lee Hawkins was found guilty of two counts of lewd molestation in Grady County. The jury sentenced him to serve ten years for the first count and twenty years for the second count, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Hawkins appealed, raising several issues he believed were errors that affected his trial. First, Hawkins argued that the prosecutor made a mistake during her closing arguments, which he thought was serious enough to affect the outcome of the case. The court agreed that the closing argument was improper and decided to change the twenty-year sentence for the second count to ten years. Next, Hawkins claimed that the trial court did not consider all the options when deciding his sentence. However, the court found no evidence that the trial court failed to do its job correctly in this regard. Hawkins also said he should have been allowed to call a witness named Bianca Thomas, but the court decided that the trial judge acted within reason when excluding her from testifying. Lastly, Hawkins felt that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. While the court agreed that his lawyer's performance was not up to standard, they concluded that it did not negatively impact Hawkins's case overall. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision for the first count of lewd molestation and adjusted the sentence for the second count to ten years, while still keeping the sentence structure as ordered by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2001-264

HC 2001-0440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:HC

In OCCA case No. HC 2001-0440, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a sex offense. In a published decision, the court decided to grant extraordinary relief and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner, who was in prison for serious crimes, requested that he be allowed to receive good time credits that he felt were unfairly taken away. These credits could reduce his prison sentence. The problem arose from a requirement by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that inmates convicted of sex offenses must attend a treatment program. To join this program, inmates need to admit their guilt and provide personal information which could lead to further legal trouble. The petitioner argued that forcing him to admit to crimes he disagreed with violated his constitutional rights, specifically the right not to self-incriminate. Initially, the district court rejected the petitioner’s request for relief, stating he could not prove he would be released even if the credits were restored. The court found that the requirement to participate in the program was not only mandatory but also fair considering the law at that time. Moreover, the court dismissed the petitioner’s concern that these requirements amounted to unfair punishment, calling his claims frivolous. However, the petitioner took his complaint to the appeals court, where he argued that his situation was similar to another case from Kansas, where the courts agreed that inmates should not be forced to incriminate themselves in order to receive treatment. The appeals court acknowledged the need to further investigate this claim and ordered a hearing to gather more facts. During the hearing, the judge found that the DOC policy indeed put significant pressure on inmates to admit guilt, which violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The judge noted that the program's requirement to disclose past crimes, especially with potential consequences for refusing to do so, placed the inmates in a tough spot. The treatment primarily relied on inmates being honest about their past, which was considered coercive. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the findings of the district court judge. They stated that while the DOC has a right to rehabilitate inmates, the requirement for them to confess and disclose could not override their constitutional protections. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the petitioner, calling for necessary changes in the DOC's policy to ensure that inmates’ rights were not violated. Thus, the case highlighted a significant legal question about balancing the need for rehabilitation with protecting individual rights. The decision pointed out the necessity for the DOC to adjust its programs to eliminate any requirement that might force an inmate to self-incriminate, while still letting them work toward rehabilitation.

Continue ReadingHC 2001-0440

F-2001-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-281, Jimmy Lee Mullins appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Death, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Non-Fatal Personal Injuries. In a published decision, the court decided that Mullins's conviction for Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Non-Fatal Personal Injuries should be reversed and dismissed. The court confirmed his convictions for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of an Accident involving Death. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2001-281

F-2001-230

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.

Continue ReadingF-2001-230

M-2001-174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.

Continue ReadingM-2001-174

F-2001-210

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-210, Gary Wesley Tucker appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under Revocation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Driving Under Revocation was affirmed. One judge dissented. Tucker was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison for Driving Under the Influence and one year for Driving Under Revocation, with the sentences to be served one after the other. Tucker argued that there were several mistakes made during the trial. The court agreed with Tucker that the trial court made errors, especially when it failed to give important instructions to the jury about how to consider his charges. One key mistake was not letting the jury know they didn’t need to agree on the greater crime to look at the simpler one. This caused confusion for the jury, which was shown in a note they sent to the judge asking for clarification. The judge’s response didn’t help them understand, which was a big problem. Since the jury wasn’t properly informed, the court decided that Tucker's conviction for Driving Under the Influence should be reversed and he should get a new trial. However, the court affirmed his conviction for Driving Under Revocation because there were no issues raised concerning that charge. In summary, the court found there were enough errors to make Tucker's DUI conviction unfair, leading them to send the case back for a new trial on that charge while keeping the other conviction intact.

Continue ReadingF-2001-210

RE 2001-0540

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0540, Eddie Craig Monarch appealed his conviction for a suspended sentence violation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional imposition of community service. One judge dissented. In this case, Monarch had initially pled guilty to Driving While Under the Influence and Driving Under Suspension. He received a five-year suspended sentence for the first charge and a short jail time for the second, along with some fines and requirements like community service and using an interlock device on his vehicle. Later, Monarch did not meet the conditions he agreed to, such as paying probation fees and using the interlock device, which led the State to ask for a revocation of his suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge found that he had indeed violated these terms and revoked two years of his suspended sentence. Monarch appealed this decision, stating that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough and that he didn't have the means to pay the fees or participate in the programs. The court noted that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove a violation and found that there was enough evidence to support the judge's decision to revoke his sentence. However, the court agreed with Monarch that the judge did not have the authority to impose extra community service hours since it was not part of the original punishment. So, they confirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence but removed the extra community service requirement.

Continue ReadingRE 2001-0540