In OCCA case No. N 2019-125, Blessing appealed his conviction for child abuse. In a published decision, the court upheld the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea, stating the plea was entered properly and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
In OCCA case No. C-2018-648, Denisa Dawn Duvall appealed her conviction for domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request for a new hearing to withdraw her plea. One judge dissented. Duvall was charged with a misdemeanor and decided to enter a plea of no contest. The court accepted her plea and gave her a deferred sentence, which included supervision and counseling. Later, Duvall filed a request to withdraw her plea, saying she wanted an attorney to help her. However, when the court held a hearing, it was unclear if she was offered a lawyer or if she had decided to represent herself. Duvall claimed that she didn’t understand the charges or the meaning of her plea when she first entered it. The court didn’t allow her a lawyer during the hearing to withdraw her plea, which is against her rights under the Constitution. The court recognized that Duvall should have had legal help during that critical moment. The State agreed that Duvall didn’t receive a fair process because she was not represented by counsel. The court decided that they needed to redo the hearing where Duvall could have a lawyer present, and she should be allowed to explain why she wants to withdraw her plea. The court ordered that Duvall be given a new chance to file a motion for withdrawing her plea with her new lawyer and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that motion. If her request to withdraw her plea is denied again, her lawyer must help her with an appeal. The decision from the court resulted in Duvall getting a new hearing, where she can properly address her plea's withdrawal with the support of an attorney.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-33, a person appealed his conviction for manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to run concurrently with another sentence. One judge dissented. In this case, the person, who we'll refer to as the appellant, had entered a guilty plea to first degree manslaughter. He ended up being sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. After some time, the appellant decided he wanted to take back his guilty plea. He claimed he didn't fully understand the consequences of his plea when he entered it, and he felt he was pressured into making that choice. The court held three hearings to talk about the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Ultimately, the judge denied his request, finding that his plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The appellant raised two main arguments in his appeal. First, he argued that his plea was not given voluntarily or knowingly. Second, he said he did not get proper legal help from his attorney, which affected his case. The court looked closely at the entire record, including the hearings and the agreements made during the plea process. They found that even though the appellant felt he was pressured, he actually understood what he was doing when he entered his plea. They decided that the plea was valid and should not be withdrawn. However, the court also recognized that the state did not follow the agreement regarding a related case. The state had promised not to seek a revocation of the appellant's other suspended sentence, but after the appellant filed to withdraw his plea, the state moved to revoke that sentence anyway. The court determined that this was a significant breach of the plea agreement, which affected the fairness of the situation. Since the appellant was also facing the loss of additional years in prison because of the state's actions, the court decided to modify his sentence. Instead of having the two sentences run one after the other, the court ordered them to run at the same time. This way, the appellant would not be unfairly punished because of the state’s breach of their agreement. In conclusion, the court agreed the appellant’s plea was valid and was made knowingly and voluntarily. However, to correct the mistake made by the state regarding the plea agreement, they modified his sentence to ensure fairness. One judge disagreed with some parts of the decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2016-38, Charlie Franklin Roberts appealed his conviction for violation of a protective order, kidnapping, and domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition and remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea. One judge dissented. Roberts had entered a no contest plea to the charges and was sentenced to one year in county jail for the misdemeanor and thirty years for each felony, with the felony sentences running at the same time but after the jail sentence. He later wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not have the right help from his attorney during this process. The court looked into his claims and found that Roberts had not been given fair legal help when trying to withdraw his plea. Specifically, his attorney had conflicts of interest that affected his ability to represent Roberts properly. Because of these issues, the court allowed Roberts to have a new and better attorney who could help him file the motion. The court also ordered a hearing to figure out what Roberts would like to do about his plea within specific timelines.
In OCCA case No. C-2015-1063, Pete Wolfe appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including attempted robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Pete Wolfe entered guilty pleas without fully understanding what that meant. He later said that his lawyer's advice was not good and wanted to take back his guilty pleas. The court looked at whether he had a fair chance to do this and said that he did not have a lawyer who could represent him properly during the hearing. The court agreed that his lawyer might not have given him the best advice, which was important. So, they decided to let him have a new lawyer who could help him better and to have a new hearing on his request to withdraw the guilty pleas. This was to make sure his rights were protected in the legal process.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-648, the appellant appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appellant should be given the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
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.
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.
In OCCA case No. C 2006-497, Tommy Lee Williams appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Williams' sentence. One judge dissented. Tommy Williams pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, which is a serious crime involving harm to children. He was initially given a very long sentence of life in prison, but with 30 years of it suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve that part if he followed certain rules while on probation. The court also said he would need to follow rules as a violent offender for his whole life. Williams didn't agree with the sentence. He thought it was way too harsh. He also mentioned that the judge might have taken unproven bad behavior into account when deciding the punishment. Williams' lawyers believed that the judge had made some mistakes, so they filed a motion asking the court to let him change his guilty plea. They pointed out four main issues they thought were problems with the judge's decisions. First, they argued that the length of the sentence was surprising and excessive. Second, they felt the judge didn't check if Tommy was mentally ready to go through with the plea. Third, they claimed it wasn’t fair for the judge to make Williams be on supervision for life, as that's a long time. Fourth, they said Tommy wasn't clearly told about the potential length of his sentence and a special rule that could mean he'd have to serve 85% of his time before getting out. The court looked through all the information presented in the case. They decided that Williams' sentence was too harsh when they compared it with similar cases. They agreed that some of the reasons the trial judge gave for his decision weren't valid. Child abuse is serious, but the punishment given to Williams felt wrong to the appeals court. About the lifetime supervision, the court believed that was also not right. They then concluded that they needed to change the sentence to make it fairer. In the end, the court lowered Williams' sentence to 20 years instead of life. They said he would still need to follow rules during his time in prison, but that the earlier sentence was just too much for the crime he committed. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure their decision was put into action.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1334, Rodney Taylor Glenn appealed his conviction for various crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to allow Glenn to withdraw his plea for some charges but affirmed his conviction for others. One judge dissented. Rodney Taylor Glenn was charged with several crimes in Washington County. He made a deal with the State where some charges were dropped in exchange for him accepting a plea of nolo contendere, which means he didn't admit guilt but accepted the punishment. The judge sentenced him to a total of 35 years for some crimes and 20 years for others, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. Glenn later wanted to change his plea, saying he wasn't fully advised of the possible punishments for his actions. He claimed that the court didn't check whether he was mentally fit to plead, and that he received wrong information about the sentencing ranges for some of his charges. He argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea since there was no solid factual basis for one of the charges—assault and battery with a deadly weapon. The court looked at Glenn's arguments carefully. They agreed that the trial court had checked enough to see that Glenn was able to plead. However, they found that they could not support the charge of assault and battery with a deadly weapon based on the facts presented. The court also agreed that Glenn had been given wrong information about the possible punishments for his actions. Because of these issues, the court ruled that Glenn could withdraw his plea for the assault and battery with a deadly weapon and a charge related to a firearm, but they upheld the convictions for the other charges. The final decision meant Glenn was allowed to change his plea for some charges, but the original convictions on others were kept. One judge did not agree with the decision to let Glenn withdraw his plea, arguing that Glenn had made a bargain and should not benefit from mistakes made during the process. This dissent highlighted the complexity of plea agreements and the expectation that all parties would honor the deal made.