Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8

F-2006-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1015

F-2006-850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-850, Jeffrey Airehart appealed his conviction for drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his termination from the Drug Court program and instructed that he be reinstated. One judge dissented. Jeffrey Airehart was removed from a Drug Court program due to several positive drug tests. The judge had previously sanctioned him for these tests by imposing short jail terms. Airehart claimed that terminating him was unfair because he had already faced penalties for the same violations. He argued that this violated laws meant to protect individuals from being punished multiple times for the same issue, known as double jeopardy. The court agreed with Airehart's first argument, stating that the Drug Court system is designed to help individuals recover by allowing for relapses and providing a structured way to deal with them rather than terminating their participation after violations. Since Airehart had already been punished, the court ruled that it was not right to terminate him again for those same actions. Regarding his second argument, Airehart said that he did not get proper notice of the grounds for his termination, which made it hard for him to prepare his defense. The court found that while the State could consider his overall performance in the program to decide on termination, the specific terminations were based on violations for which he had been already punished. Therefore, the additional reasons the State brought up were not the basis for his termination. Ultimately, the court ordered that Airehart be reinstated to the Drug Court program and that previous jail sentences related to his termination be canceled, emphasizing the importance of encouraging rehabilitation rather than simply punishing individuals who struggle with addiction.

Continue ReadingF-2006-850

F-2006-736

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-736, Russell Wayne Horn, Jr. appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to an illegal search of his vehicle. One judge dissented. Russell Horn was found guilty by a jury of two drug-related charges: trafficking methamphetamine and possessing cocaine. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the trafficking charge and 19.5 years for the possession charge after a police search of his home and vehicle. On February 24, 2005, police executed a search warrant at Horn’s home. When they entered, they found a large sum of money and methamphetamine. When searching Horn’s vehicle with keys found in his apartment, an officer triggered the car alarm. While trying to turn off the alarm, he opened the hood of the car and discovered a bag containing more drugs. Horn argued that the search of his vehicle was illegal, asserting that the search warrant did not specifically mention the vehicle he owned. The trial court had denied his motions to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, and Horn's appeal claimed this was wrong. The court acknowledged that a good search warrant must clearly identify what can be searched and where. It noted Horn's apartment was described in detail, but the vehicle was only vaguely referred to as a certain vehicle, which could apply to any car. The court found that this lack of specificity made the search unauthorized, leading to the conclusion that the search of Horn's car did not comply with the law. Also, the court considered whether the parked vehicle was part of Horn's home's surroundings, which would allow police to search it. The analysis looked at various factors, concluding that the parking lot was a shared space for multiple tenants and not closely associated with Horn's apartment in a way that would protect it under the Fourth Amendment. The State had argued that even if the warrant was insufficient, the search should still be valid under the good faith rule, which allows for legal searches conducted with honest belief in their legality. However, the court disagreed, stating that the police should have followed the law by specifically describing the vehicle in the warrant. Hence, the good faith exception should not apply in this situation. As a result of the improper search, the court reversed Horn's conviction related to drug trafficking and sent it back for a new trial. The conviction for possessing cocaine was also reversed, with instructions to dismiss that charge altogether. The decision was met with dissent from some judges who believed the officers had enough reasonable cause to search the vehicle based on what they knew about Horn’s activities and the illegal substance sales occurring from his home. These dissenting opinions highlighted that the circumstances surrounding the case should have justified the warrantless search of the vehicle.

Continue ReadingF-2006-736

F-2006-669

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-669, Coronado appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not make a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of malicious mischief. The court also found that the restitution amount ordered by the district court was not supported by sufficient evidence, and this part of the case was sent back for proper determination. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2006-669

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

F-2006-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-110, Gilbert Vega, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (while in the commission of Attempted Robbery with a Firearm). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gilbert Vega, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for the murder of Francisco Hernandez. This murder happened during an attempted robbery at Hernandez's home in Oklahoma City in December 2003. During the trial, the focus was on whether Vega was involved in the incident that led to Hernandez's death. The night of the murder, Hernandez, his girlfriend, and a cousin were in their home when three armed men broke in, threatening them. They physically assaulted the girlfriend and demanded information about money and drugs believed to be in the house. After the attackers had beaten and bound the victims, shots were fired. A neighbor heard the commotion and called for help, but by the time police arrived, Hernandez was dead. Evidence against Vega came mainly from his girlfriend, Rachel Prior. She testified that Vega and his cousin left their home that night intending to rob someone. When Vega returned around 3 a.m., he allegedly threatened her with a gun and described how the robbery went wrong. He claimed to have physically assaulted the girlfriend of the victim and had shot a weapon during the incident. Moments later, police found a gun linked to the crime at Prior's house, and DNA evidence from that gun matched Vega's DNA. In the case, several arguments were debated regarding evidence and trial procedures. Vega's team argued that he was denied a fair trial due to certain evidence being admitted. This included evidence related to a boot print found at the crime scene. The court ruled that these demonstrations were not misleading to the jury and were part of a larger set of evidence against Vega, which included strong DNA evidence. Vega also claimed there were errors in allowing certain evidence about DNA testing from beer bottles found near the crime scene and argued his jury was not properly instructed regarding sentencing rules that could affect his case. However, the court found no significant errors and stated that evidence presented at the trial, including Prior's testimony, was strong enough to support the conviction. Ultimately, while Vega's conviction for murder was upheld, the court determined that he needed to be resentenced.

Continue ReadingF-2006-110

M-2006-370

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-370, #Nicholson appealed his conviction for #Direct Contempt of Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm one count of contempt and reverse five counts. #One judge dissented. Jeremy Dion Nicholson was found in contempt of court during his co-defendant's trial. He received six citations, and each citation came with a six-month sentence in jail, which were to be served one after the other. Nicholson argued that being held in contempt violated his right to remain silent, as he was involved in another case that was still being appealed. He also said the judge acted improperly and that there was a mix of errors which caused him to not have a fair trial. The court explained that Nicholson had been granted immunity for his testimony, meaning his answers could not be used against him later. This immunity meant he was expected to testify and had lost his right to avoid incriminating himself in this situation. The court agreed that he would be held in contempt for refusing to testify, and canceled five of his six contempt convictions but kept one. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge made mistakes but noted that the judge's actions were aimed at making sure Nicholson was protected under the law. The judge didn't show any improper behavior in her conduct during the trial of the co-defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for one count of contempt but overturned the other five counts and instructed that those be dismissed. There was a disagreement among the judges, with one judge believing the judge had acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial figure, which could lead to problems in how justice was served.

Continue ReadingM-2006-370

C-2005-1

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1

C-2006-1079

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-06-1079, Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided that Harris was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of his case, which was the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that since Harris' attorney was not present at the hearing, he did not have proper legal representation. This decision led to a determination that Harris should be given another chance to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, this time with independent legal counsel. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1079

RE-2006-246

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-246

F-2006-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-780

F-2005-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

Continue ReadingF-2005-110

RE 2006-0260

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.

Continue ReadingRE 2006-0260

RE-2007-378

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.

Continue ReadingRE-2007-378

F-2006-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-114

PC 2006-0638

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

Continue ReadingPC 2006-0638

C 2006-497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2006-497, Tommy Lee Williams appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Williams' sentence. One judge dissented. Tommy Williams pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, which is a serious crime involving harm to children. He was initially given a very long sentence of life in prison, but with 30 years of it suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that part if he followed certain rules while on probation. The court also said he would need to follow rules as a violent offender for his whole life. Williams didn't agree with the sentence. He thought it was way too harsh. He also mentioned that the judge might have taken unproven bad behavior into account when deciding the punishment. Williams' lawyers believed that the judge had made some mistakes, so they filed a motion asking the court to let him change his guilty plea. They pointed out four main issues they thought were problems with the judge's decisions. First, they argued that the length of the sentence was surprising and excessive. Second, they felt the judge didn't check if Tommy was mentally ready to go through with the plea. Third, they claimed it wasn’t fair for the judge to make Williams be on supervision for life, as that's a long time. Fourth, they said Tommy wasn't clearly told about the potential length of his sentence and a special rule that could mean he'd have to serve 85% of his time before getting out. The court looked through all the information presented in the case. They decided that Williams' sentence was too harsh when they compared it with similar cases. They agreed that some of the reasons the trial judge gave for his decision weren't valid. Child abuse is serious, but the punishment given to Williams felt wrong to the appeals court. About the lifetime supervision, the court believed that was also not right. They then concluded that they needed to change the sentence to make it fairer. In the end, the court lowered Williams' sentence to 20 years instead of life. They said he would still need to follow rules during his time in prison, but that the earlier sentence was just too much for the crime he committed. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure their decision was put into action.

Continue ReadingC 2006-497

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

F-2005-529

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-529, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for First Degree Manslaughter from fifty years to thirty years. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-529

F-2005-471

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-471, Desiray Jaibai Allen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Allen's sentence but upheld the conviction. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge dissented. Desiray Jaibai Allen was found guilty by a jury for distributing controlled substances and was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year prison terms. During the appeal, Allen raised several arguments claiming errors during the trial. He felt that improper evidence and misconduct affected his right to a fair trial. The court reviewed all aspects of the case, including trial records and arguments. Although they found some issues with the evidence presented, they decided that these did not require a complete reversal of the conviction. However, they agreed with Allen on one point: certain irrelevant and improper documents should not have been shown to the jury. Because of this, the court reduced his sentences to 15 years for each count instead of 20. The judges discussed other claims made by Allen, such as prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay evidence, but determined that these did not seriously impact the fairness of the trial. The accumulation of errors didn't lead to a requirement for further action beyond reducing the sentences. Ultimately, while the judgment of conviction remained intact, the sentences were modified to less time in prison. Thus, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but adjusted how long Allen would need to serve for the charges.

Continue ReadingF-2005-471

RE-2006-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-363, the appellant appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified the sentence to six years of incarceration. One judge dissented. The background of the case includes that the appellant entered a guilty plea in July 2003 and was sentenced to twelve years, which was suspended on the condition that she complete an inpatient drug treatment program. However, in March 2005, the state filed an application to revoke her suspended sentence due to several violations, including failure to report to her probation officer and failing to comply with drug testing and treatment requirements. The court found that she also had new drug-related charges against her. In November 2005, a hearing took place where she admitted to the violations. The court then revoked her suspended sentence completely. The appellant later tried to withdraw her plea regarding the revocation but was denied. The review showed that the court followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the decision to revoke her sentence. Although the court upheld the decision, it decided to lower the amount of time she would spend incarcerated from twelve years to six years.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-363

C-2006-286

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-286, Michelle Emma Hill appealed her conviction for Incitement to Riot. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her the opportunity to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2006-286

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829