In OCCA case No. RE 2010-0600, Beau Ashley Kifer appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for two of the counts but reversed the revocation for the other two counts because the court did not have the authority to act on those counts since the sentences had already expired. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-667, Daniel Timothy Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Lewd Molestation, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for some counts but reversed and remanded other counts based on the statute of limitations. One judge dissented. The case involved Hogan, who lived with his wife and her three daughters, all of whom had learning disabilities. Testimonies revealed that Hogan had sexually abused the girls multiple times over several years, starting when they were very young. The incidents included inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. Hogan claimed that some charges should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The court agreed with him regarding several counts, concluding that the state did not press charges in time based on when the victims knew about the incidents and their nature as crimes. Hogan also argued that the trial judge unfairly imposed consecutive sentences rather than allowing them to run concurrently, as he claimed there was a courthouse policy against such decisions. However, the court found that the judge considered the facts of the case in deciding how to sentence Hogan. Ultimately, while some convictions against Hogan were reversed because of the statute of limitations, his life sentence and the convictions that were upheld reflected the seriousness of the abuse he inflicted on the young victims, leaving a lasting impact on their lives.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-638, Watson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions, modify others, and rescind certain fines. One judge dissented. Watson was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm during a felony, and other charges. He was sentenced to many years in prison, with his sentences running one after another. Watson argued that the search warrant used to search his home was not valid, that he was unfairly tried for multiple offenses that seemed to be the same crime, that he had been treated unfairly during the trial, and that he didn’t have good representation from his attorney. The court looked closely at the evidence and found that the warrant to search his home was valid. They noticed that the charges for drug trafficking should not have occurred at the same time for methamphetamine and cocaine since this counted as double punishment for one act. Therefore, they decided to reverse that conviction. They also reversed the conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it was tied to the same act as possessing a firearm during the crime. The court agreed there was enough evidence to support his convictions for having a firearm during a felony and for concealing stolen property. They noted that while the prosecutor made a small mistake during their closing argument, it was unlikely that it would change the outcome of the case since the evidence against Watson was strong. Watson's convictions were modified, which means his sentences were reduced. The court overturned specific unfair fines and affirmed the remaining charges, stating that the changes would not shock anyone’s sense of fairness. The judges believed the final combined sentence still made sense and was fair. In conclusion, while the court made changes to Watson’s convictions and sentences, they found most of the trial's foundation to be reasonable, ensuring that these decisions aligned with the law. The case will return to the lower court to fix some details in line with the appellate court's ruling.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-391, Steven Antonio Wooden appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Wooden's convictions, but modified his sentences from thirty years to twenty years each, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Two judges dissented regarding the reduction of the sentences. Mr. Wooden was found guilty in two separate robbery cases after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The trial took place on January 11th and 12th, 2005, and the jury set his punishment at thirty years for each robbery. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other, which made his total sentence more than fifty years. Mr. Wooden argued that his trial was unfair due to several errors, including the following points: 1. He believed that combining the two robbery cases into one trial hurt his chances for a fair trial. 2. He thought he was not tried by an unbiased judge, which he believed was a serious mistake and should grant him a new trial. 3. He said that evidence from phone calls he made from jail was unfair and did not help prove that he was guilty. 4. He argued that the police officer's comments about him being out of jail on the day of the robberies were misleading and not right. 5. He mentioned that it was wrong to bring up his silence after being arrested, which he said violated his rights. 6. He thought his jury should have been told about parole rules and how sentences are supposed to work. 7. Finally, he felt that all these problems together made his trial unfair. The court looked carefully at the whole case and all the arguments that Mr. Wooden made. They said that the joining of the two robbery cases did not harm his right to a fair trial. They noted that no significant prejudice from this decision had been proven. They also believed that the judge was not biased, but pointed out that the way the judge announced what would happen if Mr. Wooden chose a jury trial did not follow the rules properly. Specifically, the judge needed to think about whether Mr. Wooden should serve his sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. Though the court acknowledged that some errors occurred during the trial, they concluded that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case significantly. They found the mistakes regarding the sentence structure were serious enough to modify Mr. Wooden's total prison time. However, they decided that the robbery convictions were correct and would not be changed. In summary, Mr. Wooden's convictions remained in place, but his total prison time was lessened and the sentences would now be served at the same time.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-659, Sundeep Kishore appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacated the order of restitution, sending it back to the district court for further determination. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1271, Darrell Antonio Cheadle appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences were modified to life in prison for each count, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. One judge dissented, stating that the delay before the trial was prejudicial to the defendant's defense, but agreed that the evidence of guilt was very strong.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1428, Henry C. Flowers, Jr. appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Flowers' conviction but remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Flowers was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His appeal included two main points of error. The first point was that he believed there wasn't enough proof that he made a false declaration to a licensed pawnbroker. He argued that since the employee who helped him at the pawnshop was not a licensed pawnbroker, his actions should not count as a crime. However, the court explained that the law only requires the pawnshop owner to be licensed, not every employee. Therefore, the court felt there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Flowers committed the crime. The second point raised by Flowers was about how the judge handled his sentence. The judge seemed unsure whether he could make Flowers' twenty-year sentence run at the same time as another sentence he already had. The court explained that judges do have the authority to run sentences concurrently and that not knowing this could be an abuse of discretion. Because of this, the case was sent back to the lower court for the judge to review the sentencing again. Overall, the court upheld Flowers' conviction but said the judge needs to reassess how to handle the sentences.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.