Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11(A) Archives

F-2011-563

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 1, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-563, Ronnie Lee Martin appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs After Former Conviction of Three Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. One judge dissented. Ronnie Lee Martin was found guilty after a bench trial, meaning there was no jury, and received a life sentence without the chance for parole. Martin's case stemmed from a traffic stop where drugs were discovered in his possession. The police officer who stopped the car noticed Martin acting suspiciously and later found a substantial amount of crack cocaine during a search of Martin's belongings. Initially, Martin was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, which could have resulted in a sentence of four years to life. However, a plea deal of ten years was offered but not accepted due to Martin's attorney advising against it. Later, after more evidence was presented, Martin was charged with the more serious crime of trafficking, which led to a mandatory life sentence without parole. Martin claimed his attorney failed to provide effective counsel, particularly in advising him about the plea deal. The court found his attorney's performance to be deficient, as he did not read important documents that would have clarified the seriousness of Martin’s situation. Additionally, the attorney failed to prepare properly for both pretrial motions and the trial itself. The court looked at the history of Martin's defense lawyer and noted that this attorney had been previously disciplined for ineffective practices, which raised concerns about Martin's representation throughout the trial. The judge stated that Martin was denied a fair trial, and as a result, the court had no choice but to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. In summary, the court determined that due to many errors made by Martin's lawyer, he did not receive sufficient legal representation, and therefore, his convictions could not stand. Martin’s journey through the legal system was marked by these failings, which ultimately led to the court's decision to give him another chance to defend himself properly.

F-2004-146

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

J 2001-878

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2002
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.