In OCCA case No. J-2014-980, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child due to the lack of sufficient evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. One judge dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction.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. 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling.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.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-951, Darrell Williams appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Darrell Williams was found guilty by a jury in Payne County of multiple counts, including Sexual Battery and two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. Although the jury had acquitted him of two other charges, he was sentenced to one year in jail for each conviction, with the sentences to run at the same time. Williams felt that his trial was unfair and raised several reasons, or propositions, for his appeal. Williams argued that the jury was unfairly influenced by outside information during their discussions, which he believed violated his right to a fair trial. He indicated that some jurors visited the scene of the crime without permission and discussed what they saw during their deliberations. The court agreed with his concern that such behavior could affect the jury's decision-making process. During the appeal, the court conducted an investigation to see if the jurors did indeed visit the crime scene and if they talked about it while deciding the case. Testimony revealed that several jurors had made those unauthorized visits and shared their observations. Since the details about the crime's location and lighting were crucial to whether the identification of Williams was accurate, the court concluded that exposure to such outside information during deliberations could have impacted the verdict. Additionally, Williams complained that a bailiff might have made comments about needing a unanimous verdict, which could have pressured the jurors. The trial court looked into this matter as well, but they ultimately found that it was not clear if such comments were made and whether they had any effect on the jurors' decisions. The court found serious enough mistakes in the trial process and decided that Williams did not receive a fair trial. This led them to reverse the earlier judgments against him and send the case back to the lower court for a possible new trial. In summary, the court's main reasons for reversing the convictions were the unauthorized jury visits to the crime scene and the potential influence of the bailiff's comments on the jury's verdict.
In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-545, Jimmy Dale Stone appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy was found guilty by a jury on several counts of lewd molestation involving children. He was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison, with some of the sentences running one after the other and one running at the same time as another. He had to serve a majority of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. On appeal, Jimmy raised several important points. He argued that the judge didn’t explain all the important parts of the law about lewd molestation to the jury. He believed the evidence used against him wasn’t enough to prove he had done anything wrong. He claimed that the jury was influenced by people who talked about the case before it started. He felt he was not given a fair chance at trial because of things the prosecutor said about the victims. Also, he said he should have had money for an expert witness to help prove his side. He believed that presenting other crimes as evidence was unfair. Finally, he argued that all these mistakes together affected the fairness of his trial. The main issue that the court found was a big mistake in how the jury was instructed about the law. There are specific things that must be proven to convict someone of lewd molestation. To be found guilty, it must be shown that the defendant knowingly did something wrong and that they intended to do it. This was not explained correctly to the jury during the trial. The court found that some parts of the legal instructions given did not include important elements needed to prove the case. Although there was an argument about whether this error was harmful, the court decided it was serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial. They concluded that omitting the requirement that the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally could have changed how the jury viewed the evidence and questions raised during the trial. Since the evidence against him was not overwhelming enough to guarantee he was guilty regardless of these instructions, the decision was made to reverse the conviction. Because of this significant error, the court said that Jimmy should get a new trial where the jury would be properly instructed on the law. The other issues he raised in his appeal were not discussed because the main error already warranted a new trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-276, Bobby Ray Laney appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The court determined that Laney should be allowed to withdraw his Alford plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his competency to enter the plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-661, Mark Tracey Vernon appealed his conviction for five counts of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Vernon had been found guilty in a non-jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape charges and twenty years for the sodomy charge, with the sentences to be served one after another. Initially, he faced fourteen counts of rape and five of sodomy, but some were dismissed or he was acquitted of others during the trial. Vernon claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to ineffective assistance from his lawyer. The court agreed and found that his defense attorney did not present important evidence that could have helped Vernon. This included failing to interview a witness who might have provided helpful information and not questioning the investigating officer about past allegations against one of the victims. The court noted that these mistakes were not part of a reasonable trial strategy. After reviewing the trial and additional evidence presented during a hearing, the court decided that Vernon's lawyer's performance was inadequate. Because of this, they believed that the trial's outcome could have been different if the mistakes had not happened. Vernon's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial to ensure that he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. M-2011-1083, the appellant appealed his conviction for resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Franklin Savoy Combs, who was found guilty of resisting an officer after a jury trial. The trial took place in Hughes County, and the appellant received a sentence of ninety days in jail and a fine of $300. Combs later appealed this decision, challenging the way he represented himself in court. In his appeal, Combs argued that the trial court did not properly inform him of the risks of self-representation. The court looked at the records from the trial to see if Combs had knowingly decided to waive his right to have a lawyer. They found that there was not enough evidence to show that he fully understood what he was doing when he chose to represent himself. The court explained that before someone can represent themselves, it is very important that they know what that means and what they might be giving up. If there are doubts about whether a person really understood their rights, those doubts should be viewed in favor of that person. Since the court determined that Combs did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, they decided that his conviction needed to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial where he can have proper legal representation.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.
In OCCA case No. J 2013-0130, D.I.S. appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating D.I.S. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. This case began when a Juvenile Petition was filed on July 25, 2012, against D.I.S., who was just 14 years old. He was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Pontotoc County. After a hearing on February 5, 2013, the judge found that D.I.S. had committed the offenses and declared him a delinquent child. He was ordered to stay with his mother under supervision until another court hearing about his situation. D.I.S. appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he used a dangerous weapon, or that he had intent to cause serious harm. The law requires that to be declared a delinquent child, the evidence must clearly show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court agreed with D.I.S. and said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the idea that he was guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, they reversed the previous ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him. The case was important because it highlighted the need for strong evidence when judging a child in the juvenile justice system. The court made it clear that if the facts aren’t strong enough, they cannot find a child guilty of serious charges. This ruling protects the rights of young people by ensuring they are only judged based on solid evidence.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2012-294, Doris Jean Whitaker appealed her conviction for an unspecified crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial due to a lack of adequate record on appeal. The State agreed with the decision, acknowledging that the failure to provide a trial transcript denied Whitaker her right to a meaningful review of her case. A dissenting opinion was not noted.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1043, Ricky Carlos Colbert appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but ordered the case to be sent back to correct the judgment and sentence to show the correct crime of assault and battery on a police officer. One judge dissented. Colbert was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after he was identified during a video of the crime. He raised several arguments for his appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in jury instructions, introduction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccuracies in his sentence, and cumulative errors. The court carefully examined each argument. 1. For the first point, the court decided that Colbert's lawyer did not provide ineffective assistance. They felt his strategy in the case was acceptable, even if it didn't work out as planned. The lawyer's decision to dispute Colbert's identity rather than claiming he committed a lesser crime was valid, according to the court. 2. For the second point about not instructing the jury on a lesser offense, the court found that Colbert did not ask for this instruction, so they only looked for obvious errors (plain error). They concluded there was no plain error. 3. Regarding evidence, the court said the video of the crime was properly introduced, as there were no objections during the trial. 4. On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no serious wrongdoing from the prosecutors. 5. The fifth point involved many mistakes in the judgment, which required a remand to correct records to indicate the correct conviction. 6. Lastly, the court found there were no individual errors that required relief, so cumulative error claims were not valid. Overall, the court concluded to send the case back for corrections but allowed the original convictions to stand. Colbert’s request for a hearing about his lawyer’s effectiveness was also denied.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-469, Beauchamp appealed his conviction for Feloniously Pointing a Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Beauchamp the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One member dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-287, Jason Harvey Thompson appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a hearing. One judge dissented. Thompson had pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the first charge and one year for the second, which would be served at the same time as the first. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt he did not receive good help from his lawyer when he was negotiating his plea agreement. He also claimed that the court did not properly check if he understood what he was doing when he accepted the plea and that the facts didn’t support his guilty plea. When Thompson asked to withdraw his plea, the trial court denied his request without holding a hearing on it. Thompson then took his case to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, saying that the trial court should have listened to his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The Appeals Court looked at all the information, including the legal rules, and found that the trial court did not follow the required procedures when Thompson wanted to withdraw his plea. According to the rules, the court is required to hold a hearing when someone asks to withdraw a plea, and since this did not happen, the Appeals Court said they needed to send the case back for a hearing. The Appeals Court also addressed an issue with the paperwork related to Thompson's charges, noting that some information in the sentencing document was wrong and needed to be corrected. In conclusion, the Appeals Court granted Thompson's petition, meaning he will get a chance to explain why he wants to withdraw his guilty plea in a new hearing, and they ordered the trial court to fix the sentencing paperwork.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.