Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303 Archives

F-2018-383

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 12, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-383, Samantha Ann Perales appealed her conviction for first degree manslaughter, possession of controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and no valid driver's license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to try Perales because she is a recognized member of an Indian tribe and the crimes occurred in Indian Country. Therefore, her convictions were reversed and the case was remanded to be dismissed. One judge dissented, stating that the Major Crimes Act should not prevent Oklahoma's jurisdiction in cases where federal prosecution is not possible.

RE-2019-683

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

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-683, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify it to be limited to six months. One member dissented. The case involved the appellant who had earlier been sentenced for multiple crimes, including possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Initially, he was given a suspended sentence where he would serve time in jail only on weekends. However, he violated the terms of his probation several times by failing to report, pay fees, and complete required programs. After a while, he faced new charges for more serious crimes, which led to the state seeking to revoke his suspended sentence altogether. During the hearing for the revocation, the judge decided to revoke all five years of his suspended sentence. However, the court found later that this action was not appropriate. The court ruled that even though the appellant had committed technical violations, he could only be punished with a maximum of six months because the alleged new crimes occurred after his probation had expired. The court concluded that the trial judge had made a mistake when revoking the whole five years instead of just six months based on the technical violations proven. Thus, the revocation punishment was modified by the court to six months instead of five years.

F-2019-82

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

F-2018-1087

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, addressing the appeal of Spencer Joe Cuccaro regarding his termination from the Kay County Drug Court and subsequent sentencing. ### Key Points: 1. **Case Background**: - Appellant Spencer Joe Cuccaro was placed in the Kay County Drug Court program on June 22, 2017, following a plea agreement that stipulated the conditions of his sentencing based on his performance in the program. - Cuccaro was involved in multiple cases (CF-2016-561, CF-2011-74, CF-2008-353) linked to drug offenses and was under specific probationary requirements. 2. **Allegations Against Cuccaro**: - The State filed a petition to remove Cuccaro from Drug Court, citing new criminal charges (including trafficking in illegal drugs), non-compliance with counseling requirements, and outstanding fees. - Evidence presented included testimonies from law enforcement regarding drug possession during a traffic stop and at the jail. 3. **Termination Hearing**: - At the termination hearing, evidence presented indicated that Cuccaro had violated the terms of his drug court agreement by committing new offenses and failing to meet his counseling and payment obligations. - The trial judge, David R. Bandy, found sufficient evidence to terminate Cuccaro from the Drug Court program. 4. **Appeal Propositions**: - **Proposition I**: Cuccaro claimed his no contest pleas were coerced. - **Proposition II**: He alleged the trial court failed to follow mandatory Drug Court procedures. - **Proposition III**: He contended the trial judge abused discretion in terminating him. - **Proposition IV**: He argued that the sentencing was excessive. 5. **Court's Analysis**: - The court found that Proposition I was not a suitable subject for this appeal and should be addressed in a separate certiorari appeal regarding the plea. - Proposition II also fell outside the scope of the termination appeal, which is to assess the validity of the termination order. - For Proposition III, the court upheld that the decision to terminate Cuccaro was within the judge’s discretion, consistent with the evidence of non-compliance and new criminal activity. - Proposition IV regarding sentencing was similarly ruled to be outside the appeal context, advising Cuccaro to raise such claims in the separate certiorari appeal. 6. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the termination order, emphasizing the trial judge's proper authority and the sufficiency of the evidence for termination from Drug Court. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the District Court's order to terminate Spencer Joe Cuccaro from Drug Court and advised him to pursue any excessive sentence claims separately. The decision reflects adherence to legal standards concerning plea agreements, drug court compliance, and the discretion exercised by trial judges in such matters. For more details, you can access the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1087_1734789881.pdf).

S-2018-164

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

This document is an opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal case involving Don Arneilus Ingram. The opinion details the legal proceedings stemming from Ingram’s arrest and the subsequent suppression of evidence obtained during that arrest. **Key Points of the Case:** 1. **Charges Against Ingram**: Don Arneilus Ingram faced multiple felony charges including trafficking in illegal drugs, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of proceeds from illegal drug activity, with the state alleging that these crimes were committed after previous felony convictions. 2. **Initial Detention and Arrest**: The arresting officer, Sergeant Greg Bell, initially noticed Ingram driving a vehicle with a temporary tag in a high-crime area. After observing suspicious behavior, including Ingram’s inability to identify a friend he claimed to be visiting, Sgt. Bell approached Ingram to ask questions. This led to Sgt. Bell detaining Ingram for driving without a license. 3. **Search Incident to Arrest**: Following the arrest, Sgt. Bell conducted a search of Ingram, which yielded a large amount of cash and identification. After noticing Ingram acting nervously and attempting to direct his female companion to leave, officers subsequently searched the vehicle Ingram had been driving, finding significant quantities of illegal drugs and a firearm. 4. **Motion to Suppress Evidence**: Ingram filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search was therefore unlawful. 5. **District Court’s Ruling**: The district court granted Ingram's motion to suppress, determining that the initial contact was not lawful and that the subsequent search of the vehicle was unreasonable. 6. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision**: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's order. The court found that Sgt. Bell's initial interaction with Ingram was a consensual encounter and that sufficient probable cause existed for both the arrest and the search of the vehicle. **Conclusion**: The appellate court concluded that the evidence should not have been suppressed, underscoring the importance of analyzing the totality of circumstances leading to an officer’s determination of probable cause. The decision emphasizes that even behavior that seems innocent in isolation can, when viewed in context, lead to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. For a complete review of this case and its legal implications, interested parties can download a PDF of the full opinion.

RE-2017-113

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:RE

In the case of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez v. The State of Oklahoma, the appellant appealed the revocation of his suspended sentences across multiple cases in the Caddo County District Court. The appeals were addressed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a firearm after conviction, driving under the influence, and domestic assault. His sentences were imposed with significant portions suspended, and he was placed on probation. However, the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentences citing several violations, including failure to pay fees, failure to report, changes in address, and new criminal offenses. The trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentences in full after a hearing, and the appellant raised several propositions of error on appeal. The court determined that the first two propositions, which challenged the validity of the original sentences, were not properly resolved through this appeal and needed to follow certiorari procedures instead. The court found that the amendment to the revocation order, which removed post-imprisonment supervision, rendered one of the propositions moot. Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any deficiency in counsel's performance nor shown any resulting prejudice. The appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying credit for time served was found to have no supporting legal authority, as the court indicated that there is no statutory requirement for such credit to be granted. Lastly, the court rejected the appellant's assertion that the revocation was excessive. The evidence presented to the trial court satisfied the standard necessary to revoke the suspended sentences, affirming that the burden of proof for violations is preponderance of the evidence, and that the decision to revoke is within the discretionary power of the trial court. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant's suspended sentences across all cited cases, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation. The mandates for this decision were ordered to be issued following the filing of the opinion. The decision is summarized as follows: **The revocation of Ruben Geraldo Velasquez's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.**

F-2017-1230

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1230, Oleithia June Cudjo appealed her conviction for second degree murder while in the commission of felony driving under the influence, driving while privileged suspended, and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented.

C-2018-489

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

C-2016-813

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 25, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

F 2015-738

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-738, Richard Jerrel Jackson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming the rest of the conviction. One judge dissented. Jackson was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. His sentences included life imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and varying years for the other charges, all to be served consecutively. Jackson raised several arguments on appeal, mainly focusing on claims of double jeopardy, ineffective counsel, and evidence errors. The court found that it was wrong for Jackson to be convicted of possession of three drugs when they were all found together. The State agreed that this violated the rules against double punishment, leading to a reversal of the convictions related to the marijuana and alprazolam. For the other claims, including the effectiveness of Jackson's lawyer and various evidentiary issues, the court ruled largely in favor of the trial's findings, concluding that Jackson had not demonstrated any substantial harm or errors that affected his conviction significantly. This included affirming the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancements and the handling of evidence during the trial. In summary, while the court dismissed two of the charges against Jackson, it upheld the others and determined that there were no significant errors in how the trial was conducted. The judges agreed on most aspects of the case, with one judge expressing a differing opinion on some points.

C 2015-980

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 26, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2015-980, Gary Thomas Schofield appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Driving Under Suspension, and Failure to Use Child Restraint. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of his motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas but modified his fine for the Failure to Use Child Restraint charge from $50.00 to $10.00. One judge dissented.

F-2014-286

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-286, Ketcher appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the $5000 fine associated with the felony offense. One judge dissented. Ketcher was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including eluding police, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and having improper vehicle equipment. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison and received various fines based on his convictions. The main point of his appeal was about the eluding charge, where he argued that the evidence was not strong enough to show he endangered others while trying to escape the police. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including video footage, demonstrated that Ketcher did endanger others. He ran stop signs and drove very fast through neighborhoods, even close to pedestrians. Therefore, the court felt that a reasonable person could find him guilty of the charge beyond doubt. Ketcher also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury about a lesser charge for eluding. However, the court stated that the evidence did not support this request, so they denied it. Additionally, the court acknowledged a mistake in how the jury was told about fines for the felony eluding charge. It should have been clear that the jury had the choice to impose a fine rather than it being mandatory. Because of this, they removed the $5000 fine from Ketcher's sentence. Regarding other claims of unfairness during the trial, the court found no serious problems that damaged Ketcher’s right to a fair trial. They noted that much of what the prosecutor said during the trial was based on evidence presented. Ketcher also claimed his attorney did not do a good job, but since the court found no serious errors during the trial, they did not agree with this claim. The final decision by the court was to uphold the prison sentences but to remove the fine, allowing them to issue their final ruling without more delays.

C-2014-373

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

C-2013-973

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.

F-2012-226

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 15, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-226, Johnny Sanders O'Neal, IV appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary, Endangering Others While Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, and Driving While License Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm O'Neal's convictions but modified his sentences, reducing them from 20 years to 15 years for Count 1 (Burglary) and from 25 years to 20 years for Count 2 (Endangering Others), both to be served at the same time. One judge dissented.

F 2011-1045

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2011-1045, Joshua Paul Nosak appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, driving without a driver's license, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered that the case be sent back to fix a mistake in the sentencing. One judge disagreed with the decision. Nosak was found guilty of serious crimes after a jury trial. The jury decided he was guilty of first-degree manslaughter for driving while impaired and also found him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident after someone died. He was sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison for the manslaughter charge and received additional time and fines for the other offenses. Nosak's appeal raised several arguments. First, he believed that the court should not have allowed a specific charge against him because the underlying misdemeanor wasn't strong enough to support the manslaughter charge. However, the court found that this didn't really hurt his case because the jury found him guilty on other grounds. Second, Nosak argued that the court allowed bad evidence to be presented, which shouldn't have been allowed. The court found that he didn't object to this during the trial, so they couldn’t rule on it unless it was obviously wrong and affected his rights, which they determined it did not. Third, he claimed that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. However, the court said that because the evidence against him was very strong, he could not show that he was harmed by any mistakes made by his attorney. The fourth point was about correcting mistakes in the court's decision regarding his punishment. The court accepted that there were errors in the sentencing order and decided to send the case back to fix them. Finally, Nosak argued that the many errors combined made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. But the court found that there were no individual mistakes that were serious enough to change the trial's outcome. In conclusion, the decision meant that while Nosak's convictions were upheld, the court would correct the sentencing mistakes before finalizing the case. One judge disagreed with this conclusion, but the others agreed with the majority opinion.

M 2011-0870

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2013
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

M 2011-0871

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2013
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.

F-2009-749

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 12, 2011
Post category:F

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.

F-2009-959

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-959, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the lower court's decisions while modifying one of the fines imposed. One member dissented. Napoleon Eugene Manous was tried by jury in the District Court of Okmulgee County, where he was found guilty of two counts: one for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and another for driving with his license suspended. The jury sentenced him to seven years in prison with treatment and a fine for the first count, and to six months in jail with a fine for the second count. Mr. Manous raised several points in his appeal. He claimed his rights were violated in a few ways. For instance, he argued that statements he made while in custody should not have been used against him because he did not receive a warning that he had the right to remain silent (known as a Miranda warning). The court found that the statements were not obtained from police questioning, so they could be used in his trial. He also argued that hearsay evidence was wrongly allowed in his trial. However, the court found that this evidence was not used to prove something true but was only to explain why the police officer acted as he did. Therefore, it did not violate his right to a fair trial. Manous believed he did not get a fair punishment because of incorrect jury instructions about fines for his second count. The court agreed that the jury got bad information about how much they could fine him and decided to change the fine amount to $300 instead of $500. He argued that the trial court misapplied his sentence and didn’t accurately reflect the jury’s decision. The court acknowledged this mistake and agreed to correct the written judgment to match the jury’s decisions. Moreover, Manous claimed that mentioning his past legal troubles during sentencing was unfair. The court, however, found that his lawyer did not object to this at the trial, which weakened his argument on appeal. He also stated his lawyer did not properly fight against the errors during the trial that affected his sentencing. Again, the court found that many issues had already been addressed and it was not enough to have his conviction overturned. Lastly, he combined all his complaints, arguing that they collectively warranted a new trial, but the court ruled that there was no significant accumulation of errors. In summary, the court affirmed much of the initial decisions made by the lower court but did make changes to the fine in one count. One judge disagreed with part of the decision but largely supported the overall outcome.

F-2005-859

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-859, Percy Dewayne Cato appealed his conviction for driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions, but modified one of the fines. One judge dissented. Percy Cato was found guilty by a jury for three different offenses. The first was driving under the influence, which was more serious because he had two previous DUI convictions. The jury gave him a punishment that included time in prison and other conditions like treatment and community service. He was sentenced to a total of four and a half years, with some of that time suspended, meaning he would only serve three years in prison and spend time on probation afterwards. Cato claimed the instructions given to the jury about his previous DUI convictions were wrong, saying they should have been told that one of those convictions couldn't be used to give him a harsher punishment. The court found that this mistake did not harm Cato; he still received a fair punishment based on his actions. He also argued that the way his punishment was split between prison time and treatment violated the law. However, the court ruled that this was okay because the law allows for a mix of punishment and rehabilitation for DUI cases. Cato requested that the jury be told how to consider evidence showing he refused to take a breath or blood test. Although the court said this type of instruction is important, they did not find it necessary in Cato's case because he couldn't prove that it affected the outcome of his trial. In summary, the court upheld the main parts of Cato's punishment while making a small change to one of the fines. The decision was mostly in favor of maintaining his convictions, showing the court believed that the jury's decision was fair and just.

F-2005-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 28, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1176, Rollie Mack Francis appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including eluding a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of his sentences but affirmed the other convictions. The court agreed with the state that there was an error in how a fine was considered in one of the counts, changing it to a $500 fine. One judge dissented.

F-2005-700

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 14, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

S-2005-840

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.