Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 860.1 Archives

F-2016-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 16, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

F-2015-187

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-187, Steven R. Jennings appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Jennings’ conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, while affirming the other conviction. One judge dissented. Jennings was found guilty by a jury for two serious crimes against a person in a domestic situation. The jury recommended a punishment of 25 years in prison for each crime, making a total of 50 years. Jennings thought this was unfair and argued several reasons that should change his situation. First, Jennings said both convictions were for one single action, meaning he shouldn't be punished twice for the same act. The court looked closely at whether the injuries were caused by separate actions or not. They decided that Jennings’ actions were connected and not separate incidents. Because of this, the court agreed with Jennings that he should not have been sentenced for both. Next, Jennings argued that the way the trial was conducted was not fair. He wanted the trial to be held in one stage, which would have simplified things. However, the court believed it was appropriate to have two stages so that the jury wouldn’t be overly influenced by his past convictions when deciding if he was guilty of the new charges. Therefore, they didn’t agree with his claim about this issue. Thirdly, Jennings felt that his lawyer did not help him enough, which meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked at this claim and decided that Jennings did not show how having a different lawyer would have changed the outcome of his case. They found no clear mistakes made by his attorney that harmed his defense. Finally, Jennings felt that a 50-year sentence was too long. Since the court reversed one of his convictions, this concern became less relevant because his total sentence was reduced. In conclusion, the court affirmed one of Jennings’ convictions, it reversed the other, and decided that he should get a new sentence based on the remaining conviction. One judge disagreed and believed there should be a different outcome.

F-2012-1014

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2014
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-1014, David Lynn Fleming appealed his conviction for Breaking and Entering, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine and Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for the Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Fleming was tried and found guilty of breaking into a home and possessing illegal drugs. The jury gave him a total of fifty years in prison for one count of drug possession. The main arguments in his appeal focused on whether he was punished too harshly for one act, issues with how the trial was conducted, and improper influences on the jury. The court found some merit in his claims about the evidence presented but ultimately upheld his convictions, changing only the sentence for drug possession based on a legal error made during the trial.

F-2012-567

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 23, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.

F-2010-307

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 14, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.

RE-2008-001

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

In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified the sentence for first-degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. The sentences for both charges were ordered to run consecutively, and the decision to revoke Lewis's suspended sentence was affirmed. One judge dissented concerning the introduction of a witness's testimony from a previous trial, arguing it violated Lewis's right to confront witnesses.

F-2008-061

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

In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for first degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment but affirmed the judgment and sentence for robbery. One judge dissented regarding the issue of the introduction of certain testimony. The case began when Lewis and another person killed Orlando Prudom at a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They shot Prudom multiple times and took items from him. Lewis was found guilty by a jury and received a harsh sentence because of his previous criminal record. During the appeal, Lewis raised several issues. One concern was about the trial procedure used when the jury decided his sentence after learning of his past conviction. He argued that the jury should not have known about his prior conviction when deciding the murder sentence. The court agreed that the trial procedure was flawed, which affected the fairness of his sentencing, leading them to change his sentence. Lewis also argued that a witness's testimony from a previous trial was used improperly without giving him a chance to confront her. However, the court decided that this error did not significantly affect the outcome because there was a lot of strong evidence against him, such as his own admissions and other witnesses' accounts. Another point Lewis raised was about the introduction of photographs of the victim, which he described as gruesome. The court ruled that these photographs were relevant to the case and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. Lastly, Lewis claimed he had ineffective assistance from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the arguments regarding the trial process were enough to provide relief, while other claims did not show that he suffered from any real prejudice during the trial. The final decision upheld the conviction for murder and robbery, modified the murder sentence, and confirmed the revocation of a previously suspended sentence for another crime. In conclusion, while some issues found in the trial were acknowledged, the court maintained that the evidence against Lewis was very strong.

F-2007-200

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 5, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.

F-2005-716

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 3, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-716, #Smith appealed his conviction for #Indecent or Lewd Acts with Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to reverse and remand for a new trial. #n dissented. In this case, Smith was found guilty of committing indecent acts with a young girl named T.C., who was ten years old at the time of the incidents. It all began when T.C. and her family traveled to Oklahoma due to the death of her grandmother. While in Oklahoma, Smith befriended T.C.'s parents and was allowed to spend time with T.C. while her parents worked. One day, Smith took T.C. to a swimming pool. Several women observed Smith engaging in suspicious behavior with T.C., such as fondling her and kissing her inappropriately. They felt that T.C. looked scared and uncomfortable. After watching the situation for about two hours, they called the police. The police spoke to T.C. and her parents, but at first, T.C. denied that anything inappropriate had happened. However, during the police investigation, Smith made troubling statements, including mentioning that he had previously been convicted of a similar crime against his own daughter. During the trial, T.C. testified that she thought of Smith like a grandfather and said he never touched her inappropriately at the pool. However, the other witnesses provided consistent testimonies about what they observed. The jury ultimately believed the eyewitnesses over T.C.'s denial of the abuse. Smith's defense argued that the evidence was not sufficient, and they challenged whether the trial was fair. They also raised several legal points regarding sentencing and the inclusion of evidence from past crimes. The court agreed with some of these points, particularly regarding the trial's fairness and the admissibility of evidence related to Smith's prior convictions. In the end, the court reversed Smith's conviction and ordered a new trial because they found issues in how evidence and instructions were handled during the original trial. Smith will now have another chance to contest the accusations against him.

F-2003-1252

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.

F-2001-231

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-231, Mark Eugene Smith appealed his conviction for Attempted Manufacture of Methamphetamine, Driving under Suspension, Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Possession of a Precursor Substance Without a Permit. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences on the charges of Attempted Manufacture of Methamphetamine, Driving under Suspension, and Possession of a Controlled Drug. However, the court reversed and dismissed the conviction for Possession of a Precursor Substance Without a Permit and the related fine. One judge dissented.