In OCCA case No. F-2015-194, Jarrod Demar Mansker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery, Second Offense, after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mansker's conviction but remand the case for resentencing to consider his request for credit for time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-1030, Ronnie Eugene Woods appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute, Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability, and Driving with License Cancelled, Suspended, or Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding Woods' sentences, ensuring that they would be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-1100, Kenshari Andre Graham appealed his conviction for Second Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty of murdering Alec McGlory while trying to rob him at gunpoint for illegal drugs. The jury recommended that he serve life in prison, and the trial court agreed with this sentence. During the appeal, Graham argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the State to introduce evidence of another crime he committed—a burglary that took place two days after the murder. He believed this should not have been allowed because it did not relate to the murder case. The court reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial to determine if it was appropriate. Normally, evidence of other crimes is not allowed to prove that someone is guilty of the crime they are charged with. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. One exception is if the other crime is closely connected to the crime being charged, which can help to explain it better. In this case, the burglary and the murder were separate events that happened in different places and times. The burglary did not relate to the drug robbery that led to McGlory's murder. The trial court had allowed the burglary evidence in part to show a possible consciousness of guilt, or that Graham was trying to escape the legal consequences of his actions. The court explained that evidence of fleeing can sometimes be used to support the idea that someone is guilty, but they needed to be careful about how it is used. Despite admitting that the trial court made a mistake by allowing the burglary evidence, the court did not believe that this mistake had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict Graham. The jury also heard strong evidence from two witnesses who testified that Graham confessed to the murder, along with other evidence connecting him to the crime. The judges concluded that the jury likely made their decision based on this solid evidence, and not just the burglary evidence. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges had doubts about whether the court would have given Graham the maximum sentence of life in prison if they hadn’t considered the burglary. Because of this, the court decided to send the case back to the District Court to determine a proper sentence without considering the improperly admitted evidence. Overall, while Graham's conviction remained in place, the judges recognized the need to reevaluate his sentence without the influence of the wrongful entry of evidence from the burglary case.
In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-974, Donald Edward Tolliver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, requiring a new determination of the victim's losses. One judge dissented. Tolliver was found guilty by a jury and received a thirty-five-year sentence, with thirty-two years suspended. He had to pay over $10,000 in restitution, which he appealed, arguing several points about his trial. He claimed the trial court made several errors. First, he believed the court should have instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses, like Assault and Battery, but the court noted that Tolliver had proclaimed his innocence and did not show he committed any lesser crime. Second, he argued the court should have included an instruction about flight, which might help explain his actions after the shooting. However, because he did not properly ask for this during the trial, the court ruled he could not bring this up on appeal. Third, he accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing this affected his chance for a fair trial. However, the court found that while some actions by the prosecution could be questionable, they didn't constitute an error that would change the outcome of the trial. In his fourth argument, Tolliver said the court didn't follow proper rules regarding restitution calculations. The appellate court agreed with this point, stating that the evidence did not clearly show the victim's actual losses. Fifth, he argued the thirty-five-year sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, finding the sentence appropriate given the crime. Finally, he claimed that all the errors combined took away his right to a fair trial, but the court noted there wasn’t enough evidence to support this claim either. Ultimately, while Tolliver's conviction and sentence were upheld, the restitution order was sent back to the lower court for further consideration of the victim's financial losses.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-743, the appellant appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), first-degree arson, and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences for some charges but vacate the revocation for one charge due to a prior dismissal. The case began when the appellant, on November 3, 2010, pleaded guilty to several charges, including attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve time but was given a chance to have his sentences suspended if he followed probation rules. However, in August 2012, the state claimed the appellant violated these rules by not living in a sober facility and testing positive for drugs. The appellant admitted to these violations but was given another chance to comply with the probation terms. Later, the state filed another application to revoke his suspended sentences, alleging he committed new crimes, including kidnapping. A revocation hearing was postponed multiple times, eventually taking place in 2014. The court decided to revoke all of his suspended sentences except for one, which had been dismissed earlier. The appellant raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentences since the revocation hearing was delayed beyond the allowable time. He also argued that the court should not have revoked his sentence related to the dismissed charge and said he didn’t receive proper help from his attorney. The court found that while the appellant was correct about the dismissal of one charge, the other violations justified the revocation of his sentences. The court determined that the initial confession of violations was enough for the revocation and that the appellant had not shown neglect of care by his attorney on the other claims. As a result, the court affirmed the decision to revoke the sentences for the charges that were still valid but agreed to cancel the revocation related to the dismissed count. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the record about the dismissed charge. Overall, the court's findings led to a mixed outcome for the appellant, maintaining some penalties while recognizing the error regarding the dismissed charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-452, Roderick Leandrew Jackson appealed his conviction for various crimes, including knowingly concealing stolen property and drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of his participation in the Drug Court program. The state also agreed that the termination was a mistake. Jackson had previously been sanctioned for his violations, and since there was no new evidence of violations presented at the hearing, he was reinstated in the Drug Court program. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.
In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0777, Rogelio Solis, Jr. appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence but found merit in his argument regarding post-imprisonment supervision and remanded the case to modify that part. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-575, Jason Duane Barnes appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. The judges noted that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation because the prosecution failed to show that the judgment related to his new crime was final. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2014-96, Blackwell appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Blackwell's suspended sentence but remanded the case to determine whether Blackwell is entitled to credit for time served as a Youthful Offender. One member of the court dissented. Blackwell was charged with First Degree Rape but later pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, and his sentence was delayed for five years on probation. After violating several terms of his probation, the state requested to revoke his suspended sentence. Blackwell claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentence because he argued he was a youthful offender and that his adult conviction was improper. The court explained that the appeal focused on if the revocation was valid rather than the underlying conviction's correctness. Blackwell’s claims related to his conviction need to be addressed through a different legal process, not this appeal. The court also pointed out that issues about the correctness of laws mentioned in the documents were not within their authority to correct in this appeal. Additionally, Blackwell argued that his entire sentence revocation was too harsh. However, the court mentioned that breaking even a single probation rule is enough to revoke the suspended sentence. Finally, Blackwell maintained he should get credit for the days he spent under juvenile custody, and the court agreed to look into this matter further, sending the case back for clarification on this issue. They affirmed the revocation overall but allowed for the investigation into how much credit Blackwell should receive.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.
In OCCA case No. S-2014-564, Christopher Knight appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence found during the search. One judge dissented. Christopher Knight was walking late at night in Ardmore, Oklahoma, when an officer saw him and decided to approach him. The officer, who was still in training, had been told by his supervisor to check on people out late at night. The officer stopped in front of Knight and asked if he could talk to him. Knight agreed to talk, and during their conversation, the officer asked if he could search Knight, to which Knight also said yes. However, the officer later admitted that Knight was not doing anything wrong at the time and there was no good reason for stopping him. Knight argued that the way the officer stopped him made him feel like he had to talk and that he was not free to leave. The court needed to decide if Knight was stopped in a way that violated his rights. The court found that it was not clear that Knight's encounter with the officer was truly voluntary. The State needed to show that Knight felt free to walk away, but there was no evidence that he could easily avoid the officer. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial judge that the evidence collected during the search should not be used against Knight. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling to suppress the evidence and ordered the case to go back for more proceedings, as long as they followed the decision made. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the officer should not be blamed for simply talking to Knight.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-46, Bradley appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base) in the county jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court but modified Bradley's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Bradley was found guilty by a jury in Garvin County. The jury decided his punishment would be thirty years in prison because he had previously committed felonies. The judge in his case sentenced him accordingly and this new sentence would be served at the same time as sentences from other cases he had. Bradley raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the district court should have allowed him more time to prepare for his trial, but the court did not agree. They believed he did not meet the requirements needed for a continuance. Second, he wanted a new trial because of new evidence, but the court found that the evidence wouldn’t change the trial's outcome. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him as much as they should have. However, the court found that he could not show how this lack of assistance changed the trial result. Additionally, he argued that the state did not share important information before the trial, but the court ruled that the information was not crucial. Bradley was concerned about comments made by the prosecutor regarding his right to remain silent. The court found no serious mistakes in this regard. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected since the comments made were considered harmless in the context of the trial. One key issue was about Bradley's past felony convictions. The state had shown more convictions than were necessary, which the court admitted was a mistake. The court concluded that the jury might have been influenced by the extra information about Bradley's past and decided to lessen his sentence to twenty years, believing this was a fair correction. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, indicating they found no major errors in the trial process that would affect fairness, except for the over-exposure to extraneous felony convictions which led to a reduced sentence. The dissenting judge argued that the error did not greatly affect Bradley's rights and believed the original thirty-year sentence was appropriate.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-1177, Ford appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacate the sentencing portion, ordering that a new sentencing order not exceed the original sentence. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. SR-2013-1187, the State appealed the conviction of Carson for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. Carson was charged with six counts of lewd molestation. A jury found him not guilty on three charges and couldn’t make a decision on the other three, which are still unresolved. The appeal centered around whether the district court made the right call when allowing evidence about past sexual abuse involving a different perpetrator. The State argued that this evidence should not have been allowed under a law known as the Rape Shield statute, designed to protect victims by limiting the introduction of their past sexual behavior. The district court, however, let the defense question the victim about these other incidents. The State believed this was a mistake and wanted the court to review the evidence ruling. However, the court decided not to do so. They trust the trial court's judgment on these matters unless there is clear proof of a mistake. The court said the State did not show that the trial court made an error in allowing the evidence. In summary, the OCCA upheld the decision made by the district court, ruling that they acted within their rights, and the case for Carson was allowed to stand as it was.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-124, Roach appealed her conviction for three counts of Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.