Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 15 Archives

F-2016-549

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.

M 2013-0073

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2014
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2013-0073, Fredrick Bruce Knutson appealed his conviction for planning and zoning violations. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Fredrick Bruce Knutson was given four tickets for having signs that were too big according to local rules. He was fined by a municipal court judge for breaking these rules. Knutson argued that the rules were confusing and unfair because they did not clearly explain that they applied to his property, which was used for agriculture, not residential purposes. He also felt there was not enough proof that he really broke the rules since his land was not residential. Knutson pointed out that the city should not have punished him because the signs he had were allowed on agricultural land and because the rules did not say what residential meant. The court decided that the signs were put up in an area that was agricultural and that Knutson should not have been found guilty. Therefore, the court reversed the decision and said Knutson should not be punished for the signs he displayed.

F-2010-99

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 21, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-99, Sheila Diane Royal appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm all of Royal's convictions but to modify her sentence for one of the misdemeanor charges due to a procedural error during her trial. One judge dissented. Royal was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, unlawful possession of marijuana (second offense), failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. The jury determined that Royal had prior felony convictions, which enhanced her sentence. Royal received a life sentence without parole for the drug trafficking charge, among other sentences for the remaining charges. The case began when police officers went to Royal's house to look for a man with a warrant. Royal and her boyfriend denied knowing him and gave consent for the officers to search. During the search, officers found scales, crack cocaine, marijuana, a firearm, and a large amount of cash, leading to Royal's arrest. Royal raised several issues on appeal, including claims of multiple punishments for the trafficking and tax stamp offenses, the proper handling of her prior convictions during the trial, and the way the trial court conducted jury selection. The court found that the convictions for trafficking and failing to obtain a tax stamp did not violate double jeopardy rules because the laws intended for separate punishments. It also concluded that Royal did not make a sufficient objection to how her prior convictions were handled, thus denying her request for relief. Regarding the claim about possession of paraphernalia, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by improperly separating the trial stages, which influenced the jury's punishment decision. The court modified her sentence for this charge accordingly. The jury selection process was also scrutinized, but the court upheld the removal of certain jurors who may not have been impartial due to their own legal issues. Lastly, the court noted that Royal was required to wear a shock device during trial, which raised concerns under legal rules governing restraints on defendants. The court agreed that there wasn't enough evidence justifying the need for such restraint, but because it was not visible to the jury, it did not affect the trial's outcome. In summary, while Royal's convictions were largely upheld, the court made adjustments based on procedural concerns during her trial.

F-2004-825

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 28, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.