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

J-2001-80

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-80, B. D. S. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court’s order denying his motion for certification as a youthful offender and remand the case for certification. One judge dissented. The case began when B. D. S. was charged as an adult with a serious crime. He wanted to be recognized as a youthful offender instead of being treated like an adult in the legal system. The court had to decide whether he should be classified as a youthful offender, which could mean a different kind of punishment and possible help for rehabilitation. B. D. S. argued that the trial court made mistakes. He said the court did not follow the rules about notifying his family of his rights regarding the case, and he claimed his lawyer did not do enough to defend him by speaking up about this issue. After listening to the arguments, the court found that the trial court did not provide proper notice to B. D. S.’s parents or guardian. This lack of communication meant that he might not have received a fair chance in court. The judges agreed that this was important and decided that B. D. S. should be given another chance to be classified as a youthful offender. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge believed that the trial court's decision not to classify B. D. S. as a youthful offender was the right choice. This judge thought that the evidence showed B. D. S. had committed a serious crime in a cold and calculated way, and that he had a history of violent behavior, which warranted treating him as an adult. The dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of public safety and questioned whether B. D. S. could be rehabilitated. In summary, the court’s majority agreed that B. D. S. should be treated as a youthful offender for a fresh evaluation, while the dissenting judge maintained that the evidence showed he should remain classified as an adult.

F 2000-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.

F-1999-1615

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1615, Jackie Lavern Nuckols appealed his conviction for Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Nuckols was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a $100,000 fine. He appealed his conviction, raising several issues. First, he argued that old convictions were unfairly used against him, which should not have been allowed. The court agreed that this was not right since the old convictions could have influenced the jury too much. However, they also said that this alone didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Second, there was a problem with evidence about another crime that was brought up during the trial. The court found that this evidence was not appropriate but decided that it didn't have a big impact on the jury’s decision. Third, Nuckols thought that his fine was too high and should be changed, but the court did not agree with this point. Fourth, he claimed that he didn't have enough help from his lawyer when he needed it. The court said that even though his lawyer might not have done everything perfectly, it didn’t hurt Nuckols' chance for a fair trial. His lawyer had a chance to represent him in other important parts of the trial. Lastly, Nuckols felt that when all of these issues were looked at together, they took away his right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that some mistakes were made, especially about the old convictions and the mention of another crime, and they concluded that these combined errors were serious enough to justify a new trial. All in all, the court decided to reverse Nuckols’ conviction and said he should have a new trial to properly address these issues.

F 2000-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.

F 2000-0310

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-0310, Buckley appealed his conviction for Burglary Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence but modified it to run concurrently with another sentence. None dissented.

F 2000-341

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-341, Cortez Lamont Franklin appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Cortez Franklin was found guilty after a trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded evidence found during his arrest, claiming it violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. He also said the evidence was not enough to prove he had the drugs. The appellate court looked at the reasons for stopping Franklin. The judges found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion when they detained him. Because Franklin's detention was considered unreasonable, they stated that the drugs found during this unlawful detention could not be used as evidence. Since there was no valid evidence left to support his conviction, the court reversed the trial court's decision, meaning Franklin's case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against him. They did not need to discuss Franklin's second point about the sufficiency of the evidence.

RE-2000-1034

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.

C-2000-750

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 5, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.

RE-2000-251

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.

F-2000-1232

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 30, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1232, Virginia Lee Patton appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Second Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Virginia Lee Patton was found guilty by a jury of killing someone (which was labeled as Second Degree Murder) and of causing harm to a child (originally charged as Injury to a Minor Child). The jury recommended a punishment of fifty years in prison for the murder, and a one-year sentence for the charge related to the minor child. The sentences were set to be served one after the other. During her appeal, Patton claimed two main issues. First, she argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the murder conviction and that it was wrong to charge her with Second Degree Murder. Secondly, she pointed out that it was unfair to charge her with two crimes based on the same situation, which might violate her rights. The court examined all details and evidence from the trial. After reviewing everything, the judges agreed that there was enough evidence to support the murder conviction. They felt that a reasonable person could conclude she was guilty of that offense based on the facts presented during the trial. However, the court also recognized that charging Patton with both Second Degree Murder and Neglect of a Minor Child was a problem because it relied on the same evidence for both charges. Due to this, they decided to reverse the conviction for Neglect of a Minor Child and ordered it to be dismissed, meaning she would not be punished for that crime. In summary, the court upheld the serious conviction for murder while removing the lesser charge related to the child. One judge disagreed with the decision about the murder conviction.

F 2000-515

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-515, Larry Alan Schroeder appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including burglary and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and sentences but reversed some related to specific counts due to insufficient evidence and legal issues. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of certain burglary counts, believing there was enough evidence to support those convictions. Ultimately, some charges were upheld while others were dismissed, shaping the outcome of the appeal.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.