Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1355A(D)

RE-2015-735

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-735

RE-2010-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-512

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

C-2010-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.

Continue ReadingC-2010-322

F-2005-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-786

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785