Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11

RE-2019-42

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. CF-2012-206, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence. The appellant failed to pay restitution and supervision fees, and he was found guilty of a new crime, Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the sentence based on these violations. One judge dissented, arguing that the appellant’s failure to pay was not willful and should have been considered.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-42

F-2017-1001

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1001, Jacob Darrell Tyre appealed his conviction for child abuse and child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Jacob Darrell Tyre was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for child abuse and child neglect. He received a sentence of eight years in prison for child abuse and twelve years for child neglect, with both sentences served back-to-back. He was also fined but the fines were later suspended. Tyre argued three main errors in his appeal. First, he claimed his lawyer had not effectively represented him because the lawyer admitted Tyre was guilty of child abuse without discussing it with him first. The court looked into this issue and found that the lawyer had actually talked to Tyre about this strategy beforehand, and Tyre approved it, even if he was not happy about it. Second, Tyre believed that the actions of the prosecutor made his trial unfair. However, the court found that there were no clear mistakes that affected the fairness of the trial. Third, Tyre challenged the testimony of a doctor who suggested that a child was abused. Since Tyre did not object to this during the trial, the court reviewed it for serious mistakes but found that the doctor's testimony was allowed. In the end, the court upheld Tyre's convictions and sentences, ordering that the decision be effective immediately.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1001

F-2018-801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of **Jeremy Tyson Irvin v. The State of Oklahoma**, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appeal of Irvin, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life in prison. The court considered several claims raised by Irvin, including ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of the right to present a complete defense, admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to instruct on flight evidence, and cumulative errors. ### Key Propositions and Findings: 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: - Irvin asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for multiple reasons, including failure to use evidence related to his traumatic brain injury and lack of investigation into the circumstances surrounding his police statement. - The court noted that there is a high presumption of reasonable performance by counsel under the Strickland standard. Irvin failed to demonstrate any deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome of his trial. - His application for an evidentiary hearing to support his claims of ineffective assistance was denied, as he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of ineffective representation. 2. **Right to Present a Complete Defense**: - The trial court limited certain character evidence related to the victim’s violent history. However, the court allowed substantial testimony regarding the victim's prior bad acts. - As the defense sufficiently conveyed the context of Irvin's fear of the victim, the court found no error in limiting additional evidence. 3. **Admission of Evidence Regarding Standoff**: - The court upheld the admission of evidence concerning a thirteen-hour standoff that Irvin had with police, finding it relevant to his consciousness of guilt. The probative value was not substantially outweighed by any potential prejudicial effect, particularly since no objection was raised by the defense. 4. **Failure to Instruct on Flight**: - The absence of a flight instruction was reviewed for plain error but deemed not to have adversely affected Irvin’s substantial rights. The court found that the evidence of guilt existed independently of the standoff details. 5. **Cumulative Error**: - Irvin claimed that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no individual errors warranting relief, this argument was also denied. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Irvin's conviction and sentence, concluding that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor was any prejudicial error made during the trial process. The application for an evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance claims was also denied. The judgment emphasizes the court's adherence to the standards of due process and the evaluation of evidence within the legal framework guiding criminal proceedings in Oklahoma.

Continue ReadingF-2018-801

F-2018-626

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Carl Douglas Crick, Jr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma reviewed Crick's appeal following a jury trial that found him guilty of multiple counts of sexual offenses, including first degree rape and lewd acts with a child. Crick received life sentences for certain counts, while others received lesser prison terms. The trial court ordered some sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively. Crick's main contention on appeal was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically citing his attorney's failure to present certain witnesses and to object to improper testimony from a prosecution witness that allegedly vouched for the credibility of the victim. The court applied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, which requires the appellant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court determined that the evidence presented by Crick did not clearly demonstrate a strong possibility that counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards. As such, Crick's request for an evidentiary hearing to further explore these claims was denied. The court also assessed the claim concerning the prosecution witness's testimony. It concluded that the alleged vouching was not comparable to previous cases that warranted reversal, thus affirming that counsel's choice not to object did not amount to deficiency. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, indicating that Crick had not established a violation of his right to effective counsel. The decision was issued with a note for the mandate to be ordered upon delivery and filing of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2018-626

RE-2018-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAKOTA MICHAEL SHANE BELL, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-855** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 26 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Dakota Michael Shane Bell appeals from the revocation of suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952. He pleaded guilty on April 5, 2017, to Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2016-375 and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle in Case No. CF-2016-952. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment in each case, with all but the first sixty days suspended, and the sentences ordered to be served concurrently. On January 22, 2018, the State filed motions to revoke these suspended sentences, citing several violations by Appellant, including failure to pay required fees, absconding from supervision, and failing to complete mandated evaluations. After a hearing, Judge Kistler allowed Appellant until May 16, 2018, to comply with the conditions. When he did not appear, a warrant was issued. On July 24, 2018, following further proceedings, the trial court revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence. A violation report submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections indicated Appellant failed drug tests and several other requirements. On July 11, 2019, the State sought to supplement the record with an Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which was granted by the court. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the revocation constituted an abuse of discretion based on his personal disadvantages. This argument is without merit, as a suspended sentence is a discretionary grace. The State must prove only one violation for revocation. Here, multiple violations were established, and Appellant received considerable leniency but failed to adhere to the conditions of his probation. Thus, no abuse of discretion is shown. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that the revocation order omitted credit for time served and mandated post-imprisonment supervision. This concern has been addressed by the filing of the amended revocation orders, rendering this proposition moot. ### DECISION The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is to be issued upon the filing of this decision. ### APPEARANCES - **For Appellant:** Virginia Banks, Ricki Walterscheid - **For Appellee:** Sierra Pfeiffer, Mike Hunter, Tessa Henry **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-855

F-2018-294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-294, Alen Dean O'Bryant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One member dissented. Alen Dean O'Bryant was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts of sexually abusing a child. The jury decided to give him a life sentence for each count along with fines. The court confirmed these sentences would be served one after another and counted his time spent in jail. O'Bryant argued several points in his appeal. He said he did not get good help from his lawyer, which he believed hurt his case. He also felt that the court made mistakes by letting in certain evidence and testimonies, claiming some of it shouldn’t have been allowed. He said the prosecution was unfair and called him a liar during the trial. O'Bryant even argued that a law allowing children's hearsay statements in court was against the Constitution. When looking at his first point about his lawyer not being effective, the court checked to see if his lawyer had fallen short of what was required in professional conduct. The court found that the lawyer's actions were indeed within acceptable standards. No new hearing was needed on this point. For the second point, O'Bryant argued that the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence. The court found that the trial judge had the right to admit this evidence and did not make a mistake in doing so. In his third point, he claimed that witness testimonies wrongly supported the victim's credibility. However, because he did not object at the time during the trial, the court reviewed merely for obvious mistakes and found no error. O'Bryant claimed next that the prosecutor had acted improperly by suggesting the victim was truthful while labeling him a liar. The court discovered that the prosecutor’s comments were reasonable and a response to the defense's arguments, ruling that there was no significant error. O'Bryant also argued that the law that allowed children's hearsay statements was unconstitutional. The court noted that it had already ruled this law was constitutional in earlier cases and saw no reason to look at it again. Finally, O'Bryant stated that all the mistakes taken together meant he did not get a fair trial and that he should be given a new trial. However, since the court found no individual errors that affected him significantly, they also ruled out the idea of cumulative errors. The court ultimately decided to uphold O'Bryant's conviction and denied his request for a hearing about his lawyer’s performance. The opinion was finalized, and the decision was ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2018-294

F-2017-1104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1104

C-2016-1000

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-1000, Bryan Keith Fletcher appealed his conviction for multiple charges including kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal regarding one misdemeanor charge while denying all other claims. The court modified the sentence for the misdemeanor related to threatening violence to six months in jail but affirmed the sentences for all other counts, which resulted in a significant time in prison. The petitioner argued several points, including that he did not receive effective legal help, that he was not competent when he entered his plea, and that his plea was not voluntary. However, the court reviewed these claims and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny. The judges opined that the actions taken during the plea process were appropriate and upheld the ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance or invalid plea. One judge disagreed with some aspects of the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2016-1000

F-2014-310

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-310, Jeffery Alan Patton appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after felony conviction. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the firearm convictions. Appellant Patton was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing firearms while committing a felony, as well as possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first charge, and ten years and two years for the other firearm charges, respectively. Patton argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that his lawyer did not effectively defend him. The court reviewed his claims that there was not enough proof that he manufactured methamphetamine and did not actually possess the firearms during the crime. However, the court found that there was enough evidence presented at trial, which could lead any reasonable person to believe he was involved in the crime. The first two propositions were denied, meaning they did not agree with Patton on those points. In regards to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that his lawyer's actions during the trial did not fall below the necessary standards of proper legal representation. Therefore, this proposition was also denied. One of Patton's major contentions was about double jeopardy, saying he should not have been convicted for both firearm charges that arose from the same incident. The court agreed, recognizing that both convictions came from the same act, leading them to dismiss the second firearm possession conviction. As for Patton’s claim that his sentences were too harsh, the court concluded they were within legal limits and not excessively severe. They also noted that Patton didn’t ask for his sentences to run at the same time, leading them to decide there was no error in making his sentences consecutive. Patton also argued he should receive credit for time served before his sentencing; however, because he did not bring this up in court earlier, he could not successfully appeal this point. Lastly, he claimed the evidence should have been suppressed since the search was illegal, but the court determined that the deputies had a good reason for their actions due to public safety concerns. In summary, the court upheld most of Patton's convictions and sentences, highlighting the principle that sufficient evidence and procedural rules were followed during his trial, while reversing one conviction related to firearm possession.

Continue ReadingF-2014-310

F-2014-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

Continue ReadingF-2014-279

F-2013-1199

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1199, Gene Douglas Graham appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Douglas Graham was found guilty by a jury for lewd molestation, which is against the law. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison. However, the judge took some time off his sentence and said he would only have to serve thirteen years and pay a fine. During the trial, Gene's arguments for appeal included that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did something wrong, that he couldn't present a defense, and that he didn’t get a fair trial. Specifically, he said the judge made a mistake by not letting him talk about an eviction notice he received, which he thought was important to show that he knew about the accusations before he made a statement to the police. The court decided that the judge had made a mistake by not allowing Gene to talk about the eviction notice and that it was important for his defense. They believed that not being able to mention it could have affected the jury's decision. Even though the State had a strong case, the jury was still confused because they found him not guilty on two other counts related to the same victim. The judge also mentioned that talking about Gene's right to stay silent when the police questioned him was wrong and should not have happened. Gene’s lawyer didn’t object to this at the trial, so it complicated the case. However, since they found other problems, they reversed the conviction and decided he needed a new trial. In the end, the court agreed that Gene had not been treated fairly during his trial, leading them to reverse the decision and start over. This means they felt important evidence was wrongfully kept out and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1199

F-2013-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-668, Aaron M. Holmes appealed his conviction for Possessing A Firearm After Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Aaron M. Holmes was found guilty by a jury for having a gun after previously being convicted of felonies. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and a fine of $10,000. Holmes appealed the conviction, stating several reasons he believed the trial was unfair. He argued that the prosecutor made mistakes by asking the jury to think about evidence from the first part of the trial in later parts. He also claimed his lawyer didn't help him well and that the jury was unfairly influenced by information about his past sentences, leading to a harsh punishment. The jury did clear Holmes of two other charges related to robbery and assault. During the court's review, it was found that the prosecutor was correct in including evidence from the earlier stages of the trial when discussing Holmes's situation. Because Holmes did not raise this concern during the trial, he could not challenge it fully on appeal. Concerning Holmes's claim about the prosecutor mentioning his past sentences, the court found that this was indeed a mistake since it could affect how the jury decided on his punishment. Because the jury opted for the maximum sentence possible, the court modified Holmes's punishment from life in prison to 30 years. As for the argument about the lawyer, the court decided it didn't make sense to say the lawyer was ineffective since the earlier issue was found not to be an actual error. Thus, this part of Holmes's appeal was denied. The court ultimately decided to keep the conviction but changed the length of the prison sentence to be less than what was initially given.

Continue ReadingF-2013-668

C-2013-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-1030, the petitioner appealed his conviction for grand larceny, false declaration of ownership in pawn, and bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for certiorari. One judge dissented. Kevin Anthony Eifert pleaded guilty to several charges in the District Court of Ottawa County. These included two counts of grand larceny, one count of false declaration of ownership in pawn, and one count of bail jumping. The court placed him in Drug Court but later removed him from that program. Following this, he was sentenced to serve prison time and pay fines. After his sentencing, Eifert tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. He argued that the court did not have proper records to support the pleas, that he was not competent to enter them, and that some of the fines were too high according to the law. He also claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyers during his hearings. The court looked at his claims and decided that he had not made a proper challenge to some of his arguments when he initially tried to withdraw his pleas. Because of this, some of his complaints were not reviewed. While reviewing the case, the court found that one of the fines imposed was indeed higher than what the law allowed. They modified that fine to the correct amount. In the end, the court denied Eifert's request to change his sentence but changed one fine to align with the legal limits. Most of the judgments from the Ottawa County District Court were confirmed. Overall, while Eifert's appeal was mostly unsuccessful, one part of his sentence was modified due to an error, showing that the court takes care to ensure fairness in sentencing.

Continue ReadingC-2013-1030

F 2011-1043

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF 2011-1043

F-2011-354

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.

Continue ReadingF-2011-354

F-2010-2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-2, Clinton Riley Potts appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. No one dissented. Clinton Riley Potts was found guilty by a jury of murdering Gregory Clark. This happened after Potts learned that Clark was dating his girlfriend. The court sentenced Potts to life in prison without the chance for parole. Potts believed he did not have a fair trial. He thought that the prosecutor did not tell his lawyer important information about a witness. This information could have helped show that the witness was not telling the truth and also could have helped Potts’s case. He also argued that his own lawyer did not do enough to prepare for the trial, did not look into the case properly, and did not bring in important witnesses. After Potts appealed, an evidentiary hearing was held. During this hearing, it was shown that Potts’s lawyer did not investigate the case as well as he should have. They found that the prosecutor had information about a key witness who had received special treatment for testifying at Potts's trial, but they did not share this information with Potts's lawyer. The judge who looked at the evidence agreed that Potts did not receive a fair trial. This finding was important because the judge had also been the one who oversaw Potts's original trial, making him well aware of how the mistakes may have affected the trial's outcome. The court decided that Potts's arguments about unfairness were valid. Since this was the case, they reversed the initial verdict and said that Potts should have a new trial. The decision meant that the earlier trial was not valid anymore, and the court ordered that Potts would get another chance to present his case in a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2010-2

F-2009-1110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1110, Twilia Renae Wise appealed her conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented, believing that the case should not be remanded for a new trial without further review.

Continue ReadingF-2009-1110

F-2009-535

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2009-535

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

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

F 2005-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-281

F-2005-597

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2005-597

F-2004-389

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-389, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery by force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved James Stephen Richardson, who was found guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $1500. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this impacted his defense. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge a juror, did not question how he was identified by the victims, and did not find evidence that could help prove he was innocent. The court looked into Richardson's claims and decided to hold a special hearing to investigate his last point about ineffective assistance of counsel. During this hearing, it was revealed that there were certain jail policies regarding the clothing of inmates that were not properly investigated by Richardson’s attorney. The evidence showed that the items of clothing could not be released under the jail's rules, which could have helped Richardson’s case. The district court agreed that the lawyer did not conduct a reasonable investigation about this clothing policy. Because of this failure, the judge believed that the defense had a weaker case and that if this information had been presented, the outcome of the trial could have been different. The court decided that Richardson's attorney did not provide adequate legal help, which is why they reversed the original judgment. In summary, Richardson's case was sent back for a new trial because the court found that his lawyer did not do enough to support his defense, particularly regarding important evidence about the clothing policy at the jail.

Continue ReadingF-2004-389

F 2003-959

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.

Continue ReadingF 2003-959