In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for two of the counts but reversed the revocation for the other two counts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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be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-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.
In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.
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 2006-0482, Juston Dean Cox appealed his conviction for multiple charges related to the concealment of stolen property and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Cox's suspended sentences but remanded the cases for resentencing to correct the terms to what was originally ordered. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0260, Rudy Leon Brockelsby appealed his conviction for Burglary II. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but remanded the matter to the District Court for modification of the sentence to give credit for all time served during the period of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Brockelsby originally pled guilty to Burglary II in 2002 and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison if he followed the rules of probation. He had to spend the first ten days in jail and was also ordered to pay some fines and restitution. Over the years, there were several attempts to revoke his suspended sentence. Two applications from the State to revoke his sentence were dismissed after he faced sanctions and served jail time. However, in 2005, the State filed a third application, leading to a hearing in March 2006. After this hearing, the judge decided to revoke Brockelsby's suspended sentence entirely, sending him to prison for five years. On appeal, Brockelsby argued that the judge wrongly made him serve a longer sentence than originally given because he believed that he should get credit for the days he already spent in jail. He claimed he had served 190 days in jail during his suspended sentence. The State agreed that he should receive credit for those days but argued that he was still responsible for other parts of his probation. Brockelsby also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he willfully failed to pay the restitution that was ordered. However, the court found that Brockelsby had violated other rules of his probation, not just the restitution ruling. The court ruled that the judge had the right to revoke Brockelsby's sentence based on the evidence presented and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, while they upheld the decision to revoke the suspended sentence, they ordered that Brockelsby receive credit for the time he served while on probation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1033, Wren appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified the length of her imprisonment. One judge dissented. Wren had originally been sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended based on her agreeing to probation terms after entering a nolo contendere plea. She did not follow the rules of her probation on several occasions, which led to her first violation and a thirty-day jail sentence. Eventually, the state filed a second motion to revoke her suspended sentence after she failed drug tests and did not pay court costs. Even after a treatment program, Wren continued to use methamphetamine. When the court determined that she had broken her probation rules again, it revoked her suspended sentence entirely. However, Wren argued that her full sentence shouldn't be four years since part of it had already been executed with her previous thirty-day incarceration. The court agreed that the final sentence was actually longer than it should have been and modified the length to reflect the time she had already served. In the end, the court affirmed the revocation of her suspended sentence but adjusted the total imprisonment time to account for her earlier time served, confirming that she needs to serve three years and three hundred thirty-five days of her sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1297, Thomas Edward Gale appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold most of his convictions but reversed one of them. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gale was found guilty of making methamphetamine and possessing certain substances that can be used to create drugs. He received a long prison sentence and a hefty fine. Gale argued that he should not have been punished twice for having two different precursor substances without a permit and also claimed that some of the evidence against him was not strong enough. The court found that Gale's actions of making meth and having precursor substances without a permit were different crimes, so it was okay for him to be convicted for both. However, they agreed that he should not have been convicted for both types of precursor substances because that counted as one crime. So, they reversed that part of the decision. The court decided that there was enough evidence to prove that Gale was keeping a place where drugs were used and sold. They also concluded that his sentence and fine were appropriate. In the end, the court upheld Gale's sentences for most of the crimes but dismissed one of the precursor possession convictions.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-816, John Carl Fike appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction for possession of methamphetamine should be reversed and dismissed, but the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana were upheld. One member of the court dissented. John Carl Fike was tried and found guilty by a jury for having cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He was sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine and methamphetamine, with fines, and six months in jail for marijuana, also with a fine. Fike argued that the roadblock where he was stopped was not legal, that he was held unlawfully, and that evidence against him was not properly handled. He also felt his punishments were too harsh and there were multiple errors during his trial that made it unfair. The court looked at these claims. They determined that the roadblock was done correctly. They said that Fike was not held unlawfully and that the evidence was accepted correctly, so those claims didn't change the outcome. However, they found that Fike could not be punished for both cocaine and methamphetamine under the law, which is called double jeopardy. So, they reversed the conviction for methamphetamine. The other sentences were deemed acceptable by the court, which also said he was treated fairly in regards to his trial. Overall, the court upheld the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana but ended the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the stop and search of Fike were not done properly.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1136, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Possession of a Stolen Vehicle and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition in part, vacating the trial court's order regarding restitution and remanding for a restitution hearing. One Judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1566, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession and distribution of controlled drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the order that suspended the appellant's sentences and remanded the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty of possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and distributing drugs to a minor. These offenses happened on January 30, 1994, and the appellant entered guilty pleas on March 27, 1995. As part of a plea agreement, the state recommended a fifteen-year sentence for each charge, which was to be served concurrently. The court accepted the pleas and suspended the sentences under probation conditions. In 1998, the state sought to revoke the suspended sentences because the appellant was allegedly found in possession of methamphetamine. During the revocation hearing, the judge ordered the sentences to be revoked in full based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the case should be sent back to the lower court, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, referencing a previous case for support. The court noted that the appellant had not previously disclosed several felony convictions before accepting his guilty plea, which raised questions about the validity of the initial suspended sentence. The court ruled that the suspensions were invalid due to legislative restrictions against suspending sentences for individuals with previous felony convictions. As a result, the court instructed the lower court to hold further proceedings consistent with the decision referenced in the previous case. Additionally, it was ordered that the appellant be given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea. If he chose to do so, the prior convictions would be vacated, allowing the state to prosecute him again if necessary. If he decided to keep the guilty plea, the sentences would be executed immediately, with credit given for the time already served. Ultimately, the court's decision led to the dismissal of remaining errors regarding the revocation orders, as they were deemed moot now that the suspension orders were vacated.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.