Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 979a Archives

F-2017-1247

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1247, Michael Wesley Watters appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Misdemeanor Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order to accelerate Watters' deferred judgment and sentencing. There was one dissenting opinion. Watters had entered a plea of no contest for his charges and was given a deferred judgment. This meant that if he followed the rules for a certain period, he would not have to serve time. However, the state claimed that he violated the terms of his deferred sentence, which led to this appeal. The court examined various issues presented by Watters regarding his case, including whether there was enough evidence for his probation violation, if the judge used proper evidence to make decisions, and if he received fair representation from his lawyer. The court found that the state's evidence, which included testimony from Watters' former spouse, was sufficient to show that he had violated a protective order. It also decided that while some issues regarding how jail costs were calculated were raised, these issues were moot because earlier court rulings had already addressed them. Watters argued that he did not get a fair hearing because of the prosecutor's behavior and that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. However, the court felt that any mistakes made by his lawyer did not affect the outcome of the case significantly. Watters claimed his sentence was too harsh, but the court explained that questions about the length of a sentence in this situation need to be addressed in a different kind of appeal, not this one. Ultimately, the court found no significant errors in the proceedings and affirmed the decision to accelerate Watters' sentencing, meaning he was required to serve his time in prison.

C-2018-688

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property, endeavoring to distribute marijuana, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for certiorari but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. On January 6, 2015, the petitioner entered guilty pleas for the above crimes and was put in a program meant to help young adults. After showing good behavior, the court decided in August 2015 to delay his sentencing for ten years, allowing him to be on probation with some financial responsibilities. However, in March 2018, the state said the petitioner had broken his probation by committing new crimes, so they asked to speed up the sentencing. In May 2018, the court accepted the petitioner's guilty pleas for the new crimes, which included possession of a controlled substance and public intoxication, and imposed additional sentences. Altogether, he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The petitioner then tried to take back his guilty pleas, but the court denied this request. He appealed this decision, bringing up several arguments. He felt the financial penalties were unfair and too high, that he did not receive good legal help, and that the total twelve-year sentence was excessive given his previous achievements in the diversion program. The court looked at these claims carefully but decided that while some of the fines were too high, particularly calling for a correction of the $1,000 fee in his case involving concealing stolen property, they would not change the length of the total prison time. They said the sentences were within the law and not shockingly excessive, affirming the lower court's decisions in many respects. The court concluded that they would not change the ruling on the guilty pleas but would send the case back for hearings on the issues related to the fines and costs.

C-2018-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-687, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property and drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner also raised issues about his sentences and fines. He argued that the fines were too high, and he expressed concerns about the costs of his incarceration. The court found some merit in his claims, particularly regarding the fines exceeding legal limits and the lack of consideration for his mental health concerning incarceration costs. However, the court did not find that the total sentences were excessively long. The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to charges and was placed in a program for young adults but later faced new misdemeanor charges, leading to the state seeking to accelerate his sentencing. Ultimately, while the court upheld the denial of his request to withdraw his pleas, it recognized problems regarding the assessment of fines and costs, which warranted a remand for further investigation. Thus, the case will go back to the lower court for resolution of these issues.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

RE-2009-655

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 25, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.

RE-2002-174

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 6, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.

F-2001-934

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-934, Guy Franklin Randell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for further proceedings regarding certain fees. One judge dissented. Randell was found guilty in a bench trial, meaning a judge, not a jury, decided his case. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years of that suspended, which means he won’t have to serve those five years if he meets certain conditions. He also had to pay a fine and other costs related to his court case. Randell raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the testimony of the victim was not reliable and needed more support to be believed. The court looked at the evidence and decided that while there were some inconsistencies in the victim's statements, they were still enough to uphold the conviction. He also challenged the costs that were added to his sentence, particularly the fees for his time in jail. The court concluded that even though the prosecution had requested these fees, there was not enough evidence to support how they were calculated. Therefore, the court decided to remove those specific fees and send the case back for a hearing to figure out the correct costs. In summary, the court upheld Randell’s conviction but disagreed with some financial aspects of his sentencing, which will be reassessed in the lower court.

F-2001-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-759, Joe Nathan Stargell appealed his conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for a hearing on the Sheriff's Fees. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence, suggesting it should be reduced to three years.

F-2001-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

RE-2001-887

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

F-2005-392

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.

F-2001-46

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-46, Harold Edward McHam appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the conviction for Indecent Proposal. One judge dissented regarding the Kidnapping conviction. Harold McHam was found guilty in a trial that took place from October 10 to October 12, 2000, in Choctaw County District Court. He was convicted of two charges: Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. The jury sentenced him to one year in prison for each count, and the sentences were set to be served one after the other. The judge also ordered McHam to pay $1,000 in incarceration fees for his time spent in jail. McHam raised several concerns during his appeal. First, he argued that the incarceration fees imposed on him violated his rights because they were not calculated according to the law. The court found that the trial judge did not show how the $1,000 fee was determined, and whether it would create hardship for McHam and his family. Thus, the fees were removed and the case was sent back to the district court to handle the fees properly. Second, McHam claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he kidnapped anyone. The court agreed, stating that a key part of the kidnapping charge was not supported by enough proof. The court saw that the evidence didn’t clearly show that McHam meant to secretly keep anyone confined against their will. Therefore, his Kidnapping conviction was overturned. Finally, McHam also argued that the punishment he received was too harsh. However, this point did not need to be discussed because the Kidnapping conviction was already reversed. On the other hand, the court upheld the conviction for Indecent Proposal, stating that there was enough evidence for that charge. In summary, the court decided to dismiss the Kidnapping charge, keep the Indecent Proposal charge, and take another look at the fees McHam was ordered to pay.

RE-2001-318

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.

F 2001-434

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-434, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of a particular charge. William Forrest Mondier was found guilty of attempting to make drugs, possessing drugs, and allowing a place for drug users. The court looked at his case and found mistakes in how the jury was instructed regarding one of the charges. Because the jury didn't have the right information, they couldn't properly decide if Mondier had acted knowingly or intentionally when maintaining a place used for drugs. Therefore, that conviction was reversed. The court also found that Mondier's possession of marijuana and methamphetamine was too similar to keep both convictions, so they reversed one of them. However, his other convictions, including drug manufacturing and possession of drug paraphernalia, remained in place, as there was enough evidence against him for those charges. There were also several arguments raised by the appellant about the fairness of his trial and the enforcement of laws regarding the charges, but the court denied those claims. The final decision was to reverse and dismiss the charge of maintaining a place for drug users and the marijuana charge. The convictions for attempting to manufacture drugs and possessing paraphernalia were affirmed. One judge disagreed with the dismissal and wanted a new trial instead.