Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053(3) Archives

SR-2022-250

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 20, 2023
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

S-2016-1126

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 22, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1126, David James Miller appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. No one dissented. In this case, the State charged the defendant with a serious crime after an incident where he allegedly shot someone. The defendant argued that he acted in self-defense. He wanted the court to believe that he should not be punished for what he did because he was protecting himself. During a hearing, the defendant provided his explanation, while the State presented evidence to counter his claims. The court listened to both sides and eventually agreed with the defendant, deciding that he was immune from prosecution based on self-defense laws. This ruling meant that the case against him could not continue. The State did not agree with the court's decision and decided to appeal. They believed that the judge did not consider their evidence properly and that the ruling was unfair. However, when the appeal was reviewed, the court found that the State did not show clear legal reasons for their complaint. The judges noted that the lower court had allowed the State to present their evidence and arguments. In the end, the court concluded that this was not a matter they could reconsider as it had to do with factual evidence rather than legal issues. Because of this, the court dismissed the State's appeal.

S-2012-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

S-2011-765

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-765, Steven Cory Lymen appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court did not misuse its authority when it suppressed evidence and dismissed the case. The State had argued that the witness's identification of Lymen was valid despite it being considered unduly suggestive initially, but the court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the identification was not reliable.

S-2009-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.