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.
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.
In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.