Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902(C)(2) Archives

F-2013-974

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 18, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.

S-2012-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

S-2009-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 22, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-719, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision, which had quashed the felony charge. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Doyle was charged with multiple offenses, including a second DUI, after a traffic incident on April 1, 2001. Initially, the state claimed Doyle had a prior DUI conviction from June 17, 1998, which would elevate his charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, Doyle's attorney argued that since more than ten years had passed since the 1998 conviction, this should not be treated as a felony charge under Oklahoma law. After entertaining arguments from both sides, the special judge ruled in favor of Doyle, stating that because of the ten-year rule, the state could not pursue a felony charge against him. The state then appealed the decision. The core of the argument revolved around the interpretation of statutes related to DUI offenses. The state believed that the existing law allowed them to enhance the charge based on the earlier conviction if the DUI was committed within ten years, regardless of the conviction date. Meanwhile, Doyle maintained that his prior conviction had to occur within ten years of the new charge in order for it to be considered a felony. The reviewing district court confirmed the special judge's ruling, concluding that the law explicitly states convicted and not merely committed, meaning that for enhancement to apply, Doyle's prior conviction must have occurred within the ten-year timeframe, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doyle, maintaining that the specific statutes dealing with DUI enhancement supported his case. The court's opinion affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the supplemental information that would have allowed for the felony charge to proceed. A member of the court disagreed with this conclusion and expressed dissent.

F-2002-653

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.