Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(G) Archives

SR-2022-250

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 20, 2023
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

RE-2020-501

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

RE-2020-398

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 21, 2021
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-398, Kenneth Joe Norton appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the trial court to modify the term executed on one charge to one year. One judge dissented. Norton was charged with two crimes, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Larceny of Merchandise, and he pleaded no contest in both cases. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but part of that sentence was suspended as long as he completed a program. Later, the State claimed he broke the terms of his suspended sentence by getting into more trouble, which led to a court hearing. Norton argued that the sentence that was given to him was too long. He believed that the old law allowed a shorter sentence. The court looked at his claims and noted that, since the law changed after he was convicted, he should only serve one year on the larceny charge. This part of his appeal was accepted. Norton also tried to argue that some of the evidence during his revocation hearing should not have been allowed because it was obtained without proper procedures. He claimed that he had not been warned about his rights when he made a statement that led to his arrest. The court explained that during a revocation hearing, the same protections as a criminal trial do not apply. Therefore, the evidence was allowed. Moreover, he claimed his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not raise certain points about his case. However, since one of his claims was accepted, the court decided that it did not matter if the lawyer made mistakes because his issue was already resolved. In conclusion, the court allowed some changes to the sentence but maintained that his revocation was valid. The court focused on the rules for reviewing revocation cases and kept Norton accountable for his actions that led to the revocation of his suspended sentences.