Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 Archives - Page 6 of 8

S-2009-623

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2009
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-623, Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented from the decision. Walker was originally charged after police found a small amount of marijuana at his home. A person named Brawdy had earlier told deputies that he bought marijuana from Walker. When the police searched Walker's home, they found a very small quantity of marijuana and no other evidence like cash or scales that would suggest he was selling drugs. Two district judges reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not support the idea that Walker intended to distribute drugs; they only found evidence that he might have had the marijuana for personal use. The state argued that since Brawdy mentioned buying drugs from Walker earlier, this should mean Walker had intent to sell. However, the court pointed out that without more evidence, like packaging or cash, they could not say Walker intended to sell the drug. The judges decided that the lower court acted correctly in reducing the charge. Therefore, the ruling from the District Court that lowered Walker's charge to a misdemeanor was upheld.

C-2009-17

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 27, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-17, Olindia Toann Vaughn appealed her conviction for Attempted Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her request to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Olindia Toann Vaughn pleaded guilty to attempting to rob someone with a weapon in the District Court of Tulsa County. She had an agreement with the court and was given a 15-year prison sentence that would run at the same time as another sentence she had. Later, Vaughn wanted to take back her guilty plea and asked the court to let her do it, but her request was denied after a hearing. Vaughn then filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is a request for the court to review her case. She also asked to add more information to her appeal and wanted a hearing to talk about her claims regarding the assistance of her lawyer when she tried to withdraw her plea. The court agreed to look at her additional information and set a hearing to explore specific questions about whether her lawyer gave her inadequate help. During the hearing, it was established that the lawyers who helped Vaughn when she wanted to withdraw her plea did not do a good job. They did not visit her beforehand to discuss her claims, did not investigate her confusion and mental health issues, and did not question her about how her health could affect her plea. As a result of these findings, the trial court decided that Vaughn had not received the proper assistance she needed from her lawyer during the plea withdrawal hearing. After reviewing the information, the court granted Vaughn's petition and allowed her to withdraw her guilty plea. They sent the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County for her to formally withdraw her plea and for further proceedings. The court recognized that it is important for everyone to have help from a competent lawyer, especially when they want to change their plea.

F-2008-1095

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 20, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.

C-2009-48

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-48, Malissa Latoya Hamill appealed her conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request and remand the case for a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea of no contest. One member of the court dissented. Malissa Hamill had entered her plea in the District Court of Bryan County and was given a ten-year suspended sentence along with a fine. Later, she wrote a letter to the court asking to withdraw her plea, claiming it was not made knowingly and voluntarily. The court held a hearing on her motion, during which she represented herself without a lawyer. The judge believed she had waived her right to have a lawyer assist her, but the court found that this waiver wasn't clear. During the appeal, the issues were whether Hamill knowingly gave up her right to have a lawyer present and whether her plea was truly made in an informed way. The court noted that a defendant has the right to attorney assistance when trying to withdraw a plea. If this right is denied, it can be considered an error unless it's clear that the defendant wouldn't have been able to withdraw their plea anyway. Hamill's claims of innocence and concerns about the validity of her plea could not be disregarded based on the existing records, which were incomplete. Because there was no proper record of what was discussed during her initial plea, the court decided that it couldn’t confirm whether Hamill had fully understood the punishment when she made her plea. This lack of clarity led the court to conclude that Hamill should have a new hearing where she could have legal help. Therefore, the court granted her request, stating that the lower court must hold a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea, this time making sure she has the assistance of a lawyer.

F-2008-538

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 17, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-538, Jerry Johnson appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Johnson did not competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, which means that he deserves a new trial. However, the evidence presented in his bench trial was sufficient to support his conviction, so they remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented.

F-2008-432

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 17, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-432, Anthony Wayne McCosar appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Threatening an Act of Violence, Public Intoxication, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate certain fines but affirmed the other parts of the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented.

C-2008-682

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-682, Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, eluding an officer, and driving under suspension. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal and deny the rest. One judge dissented. Williams had entered a nolo contendere plea, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted punishment for the crimes charged. He was sentenced to a total of 51 years in prison and fines for the various offenses. Williams later tried to withdraw his plea, claiming he had not been given the right information about his punishment and that his lawyer had not helped him properly. The court looked closely at Williams’s arguments. They agreed that he did not know he could get jail time for driving under suspension, so they decided to cancel that one-year sentence. However, they found that his pleas for the other charges were made with understanding, and he couldn't show that he would have acted differently if he had known the correct punishments for the other counts. The judges also believed that the prison sentences were not too harsh, and Williams didn’t prove that his lawyer had done a poor job. Since they found that all but one of Williams's claims were not valid, they denied those parts of the appeal. As a result, the court ordered the lower court to fix a small mistake in the paperwork regarding Williams’s plea and the specific laws he was charged with breaking. The end decision allowed Williams to be resentenced for one specific charge and made sure all details were correct in the official records.

C-2008-273

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-273, Charles Bert Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Jones the ability to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Jones entered a guilty plea for serious charges in the Oklahoma County court. The judge gave him life sentences for some counts and a ten-year sentence for another, but his requests to change this were denied. The main issue was whether he made his guilty plea knowingly, which means he understood what he was doing. The court found that there was enough evidence to say that Jones was misled by his attorney, who suggested he would get a better sentence than what the judge actually imposed. Because of this situation, the court ruled that Jones should be allowed to undo his plea and have a new trial. They ordered his case to be handled by a different judge to avoid any unfairness. The dissenting judge felt there was no strong evidence to grant Jones's request and believed the original decision should stand.

F-2007-993

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-993, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Rape by Instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided that the failure of defense counsel to call the appellant to testify, after promising the jury he would, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, which significantly impacted the trial's fairness. The court also found that the admission of other-crimes evidence related to previous molestation was improperly admitted and prejudicial. Because of these reasons, the appellant was granted a new trial. One judge dissented, arguing that the decision to not testify was the appellant's choice and did not affect the trial's outcome.

C-2007-821

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 16, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.

F-2007-526

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-526, Chavis Lenard Day appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Chavis Lenard Day was found guilty by a jury for two crimes: shooting someone with the intention to kill and attempting to rob that person using a dangerous weapon. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison for both crimes, but these sentences would happen at the same time, not one after the other. During his appeal, Day raised several concerns about his trial. First, he argued that he should not be punished separately for both crimes because it might violate rules against double jeopardy, which means being tried for the same crime twice. However, the court found that it was okay to punish him for both offenses. Day also questioned if the person who identified him as the shooter was telling the truth. The court looked at the evidence and determined that the jury was allowed to trust this witness's testimony, even if it was challenged during the trial. Another issue Day raised was about the advice given to the jury. He claimed the judge didn’t give certain instructions, like reminding them that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. The court decided that these instructions were not necessary and that the trial was fair. Day also thought a witness should not have talked about changing a photo used in the trial because it could confuse the jury. The court explained that mentioning this did not mean Day had done something wrong or had been involved with gangs. Additionally, Day argued that the jury should have been told about how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole. However, the court found that the law did not require that information for his specific charge. Finally, Day pointed out that a mistake was made in official documents. They stated he was guilty of robbery when he was actually guilty of attempted robbery. The court agreed and said they would fix this error in the official records. In conclusion, the court affirmed Day's punishment but ordered that the documents reflect the correct details of the conviction. Overall, the court found that none of Day's complaints were enough to change the outcome of the trial except for the clerical correction.

F-2006-1208

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 23, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1208, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Carr being convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The main issue during his appeal was that Carr was not given a fair trial because he could not remove a juror who showed bias towards police officers. This juror openly stated he would believe police testimonies more than other witness statements, which raised concerns about his ability to be fair. The court agreed that this bias should have led to the juror's removal. They noted that when any doubts exist about a juror's fairness, they should favor the accused. Since this bias was significant, the court ruled that Carr did not receive proper justice and ordered a new trial. They decided not to consider other issues raised in the appeal since the need for a new trial was clear. In summary, the court found that an unfair juror could have influenced the case against Carr, leading to their decision to reverse the conviction and mandate a new trial.

F-2007-543

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 22, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.

J-2008-02

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 6, 2008
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.

F-2007-165

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-165, the appellant appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the appellant's argument about multiple punishments was not needed for reversing the conviction, the sentences had to be modified to run concurrently. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentences.

F-2006-1339

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.

RE-2006-1322

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1322, a person appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's revocation of his suspended sentence and instructed the District Court to vacate the sentence imposed. One judge dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea in 2001 for First Degree Rape. He was originally sentenced to seven years in prison, with three years served and the rest suspended, meaning he would be on probation under certain conditions. In 2006, the state filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence because he did not register as a sex offender, did not pay his probation fees, and did not pay fines. After a hearing, the court revoked his suspended sentence entirely. The person argued that his sentence was illegal because he was treated as a youthful offender, which is for younger people who commit crimes. He maintained that he should not have been sent to an adult prison. The court found that he had been correctly charged as a youthful offender and that the state did not follow proper procedures to change his status. The court also ruled that the lower court committed an error by sentencing him as an adult instead of as a youthful offender, which was against the law. Since he was now older, they could not send him back for new sentencing as a youthful offender, and the original sentence needed to be canceled. In summary, the appellate court acted to correct the mistakes made in the original sentencing, showing that legal procedures must be followed when sentencing individuals, especially those classified as youthful offenders.

M 2007-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 3, 2008
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2007-0118, the appellant appealed his conviction for public drunkenness. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Here’s a brief summary of what happened. The appellant was found guilty of public drunkenness after a bench trial in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City. He was fined $69. The case began when the police received a noise complaint about the appellant's hotel suite, where he was hosting a group of kids for a football event. The kids had left earlier in the evening, and only a few adults remained. When the police arrived, they noted a strong smell of alcohol on the appellant. However, witnesses said they weren't drinking that night, including the appellant himself. During the trial, it was revealed that the appellant had a speech impediment, which may have been mistaken for drunkenness. Even though the police claimed the appellant was belligerent and had slurred speech, there was no strong evidence that he was actually intoxicated or causing any disturbance in a public place. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of public intoxication. They concluded that he was not drunk while in a public area, as he was in a rented hotel suite at the time. Based on this, the court reversed the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case.

F-2006-1015

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 27, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1015, Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Kingery's sentence from seventy years to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Earnest Ray Kingery, Jr. was found guilty of raping a child and was sentenced to a long prison term. He appealed, arguing that several things went wrong during his trial. He said that a witness should not have been allowed to talk about other crimes he allegedly committed, which could have confused the jury. He also claimed the judge pressured the jury into making a decision and that the prosecutor hinted he was guilty for not speaking to the police after a search warrant was served at his home. The court looked closely at Kingery's claims. They agreed that the evidence about the witness's testimony was not appropriate for the jury to hear, as it led to confusion about the other child that was involved in the case. The skills of the forensic interviewer were challenged because it seemed that testimony might have suggested the children were telling the truth without any evidence. Even if the trial court gave special instructions to limit how the jury should view this evidence, it still influenced their decision. However, the court found that the victim's own testimony was strong enough to prove Kingery's guilt. They acknowledged that while the testimonies of the other child were not correctly handled in terms of evidence, the main evidence from the victim was enough for a guilty verdict. In the end, the court decided to modify Kingery’s long sentence to a lesser one. They believed his punishment should still be serious but recognized that the jury might have been adversely influenced by some of the testimony they heard about other crimes. Thus, Kingery's prison time was reduced to twenty-five years. The court affirmed the conviction but made this change to the punishment. One of the judges disagreed with reducing the sentence, insisting that all of the evidence presented was appropriate, and so the original long sentence should have stood. Another judge agreed on the conviction but also dissented regarding the sentence being modified.

F-2006-669

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-669, Coronado appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the district court did not make a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of malicious mischief. The court also found that the restitution amount ordered by the district court was not supported by sufficient evidence, and this part of the case was sent back for proper determination. One judge dissented.

M-2006-370

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2007
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-370, #Nicholson appealed his conviction for #Direct Contempt of Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm one count of contempt and reverse five counts. #One judge dissented. Jeremy Dion Nicholson was found in contempt of court during his co-defendant's trial. He received six citations, and each citation came with a six-month sentence in jail, which were to be served one after the other. Nicholson argued that being held in contempt violated his right to remain silent, as he was involved in another case that was still being appealed. He also said the judge acted improperly and that there was a mix of errors which caused him to not have a fair trial. The court explained that Nicholson had been granted immunity for his testimony, meaning his answers could not be used against him later. This immunity meant he was expected to testify and had lost his right to avoid incriminating himself in this situation. The court agreed that he would be held in contempt for refusing to testify, and canceled five of his six contempt convictions but kept one. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge made mistakes but noted that the judge's actions were aimed at making sure Nicholson was protected under the law. The judge didn't show any improper behavior in her conduct during the trial of the co-defendant. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction for one count of contempt but overturned the other five counts and instructed that those be dismissed. There was a disagreement among the judges, with one judge believing the judge had acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial figure, which could lead to problems in how justice was served.

C-2005-1

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 28, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1, Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal, vacate the judgment and sentence, and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Victor Duenas-Flores, who is from Mexico, was involved in a car accident on August 9, 2003, where he crossed the centerline of a highway and hit another car head-on, resulting in the death of the other driver. Duenas-Flores had a high blood alcohol content of 0.21 at the time of the accident. Due to this event, he was charged with first-degree manslaughter. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores pleaded guilty to the charge in court and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. After some time, he wanted to change his plea but the court denied his request. He then took his case to a higher court, claiming that he was not informed about his rights under a treaty that allows foreign nationals to contact their consulate when they are in legal trouble. This lack of information made him feel pressured to plead guilty because he thought he would not have enough resources to defend himself without expert testimony, which he hoped to get help for from the Mexican consulate. The higher court found that the trial court had made an error. Even though it was confirmed that Duenas-Flores was not informed about his consulate rights as required, the trial court ruled that he could not prove that this violation affected his understanding of his guilty plea. The higher court disagreed and said that it was likely that Duenas-Flores would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty if he had known about his rights, and thus he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The ruling meant that Duenas-Flores had a chance to defend himself again, and the court did not assess whether his sentence was too long since they granted relief based on the violation of his rights.

C-2006-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 21, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

C-2006-1110

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2007
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.

F-2006-63

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.