Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991f(A)(1) Archives

F-2019-369

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 4, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-369, Collins appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment but vacated and remanded the restitution and fees due to errors in their assessment. One judge dissented. Joseph Willis Collins was found guilty by a jury for committing assault with a dangerous weapon. He faced this trial in Comanche County where he was sentenced to spend twenty-five years in prison and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Collins claimed that several things went wrong during his trial that justified overturning his conviction. First, Collins argued that when he asked police if he could go back downstairs, it meant he wanted to stop talking to them, and police should have immediately respected that request. He believed this request was an important part of his rights, which should not have been pushed aside during the questioning. However, the court decided that even though admitting his statements without considering his right not to speak was a mistake, it was not significant enough to change the outcome of the case because there was a lot of clear evidence proving he was guilty. Next, Collins argued that some embarrassing information from his cellphone should not have been used against him during the trial. He thought that this evidence made it hard for him to get a fair trial because it focused on his relationships in a negative way. However, the court did not find this evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, as it was used to help explain details relevant to the case. Collins also believed that his lawyer did not competently defend him, especially regarding the use of the testimony linked to the cellphone and the earlier statements made to police after he asked to stop being questioned. The court looked at all these claims and found that there were no significant mistakes made by Collins’s lawyer that affected the trial's outcome. The other issues Collins raised were about financial matters from his sentencing. Collins was ordered to pay $7,504 in restitution for the victim’s losses, but the court admitted this amount wasn't properly justified, so they decided it should be determined again. The court also acknowledged a mistake in charging Collins a $1,500 indigent defense fee instead of the maximum allowed of $1,000. There was also a dispute about the juror fees that Collins thought were incorrectly calculated, but since he did not raise this objection during the trial, the court decided not to change this part of the decision. In the end, the court upheld the conviction and the lengthy sentence Collins received. They ordered the lower court to redo the calculations for restitution and the indigent defense fee to comply with the law and ensure a fair process. The judgment of conviction and the twenty-five-year prison sentence were upheld, while the restitution and indigent fees were vacated and remanded for further action.

F-2018-513

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-513, Bobby Lee Ruppel, Jr. appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ruppel's conviction but vacated the restitution order, meaning a proper determination of the victim's economic loss must take place. One judge dissented.

F-2015-909

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 19, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-909, Ricky Nolan Ennis appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a proper determination of the victim's loss. Ricky Nolan Ennis pled guilty to burglary and domestic assault and battery, with sentencing delayed so he could complete a rehabilitation program. After he completed the program, the court agreed to delay his sentencing for five years. However, later on, the State alleged he violated his probation by committing new crimes. He was tried by jury for these new charges and found not guilty of kidnapping but guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery in the presence of a minor, and threatening violence. The jury recommended various sentences, which the judge followed along with increasing his sentences from the earlier cases due to probation violations. Ennis raised several arguments in his appeal, questioning whether he was properly advised about his right to appeal, claiming he did not plead to the new charges, and arguing that the trial judge considered irrelevant information and that the evidence against him was unfairly prejudicial. Ennis also claimed his attorney did not represent him effectively, that the prosecutor misbehaved, and that the sentences he received were excessive. After a thorough review, the court found Ennis's complaints about not being advised on the right to appeal and other issues did not warrant relief. They noted that he did not raise many of these issues in a timely manner and that most of his claims did not show he was denied a fair trial. However, the court did find an error in how restitution was determined, as there was not enough evidence to justify the amount ordered. Ultimately, the court’s decision affirmed Ennis’s convictions but also required the case to return to the lower court to correctly handle the victim's restitution claim.

F-2012-212

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 7, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.