Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 584 Archives

F-2018-1190

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 23, 2020
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of Walter Lee Roundtree, who was convicted of violations related to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court found against him on several propositions of error, including claims of insufficient evidence, double jeopardy, improper sentencing enhancements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points from the Opinion:** - Roundtree was convicted of two counts: Violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act and Failure to Comply with the Act, with the jury recommending sentences of four and five years, respectively, to be served consecutively. - The court addressed several legal propositions raised by Roundtree, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions, and there was no violation of double jeopardy laws. - Roundtree's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel was also denied, as the court found that he did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from his attorney's performance. - The court ultimately affirmed the judgment and sentences while denying a request to supplement the appeal record due to a lack of evidentiary support. **Judicial Opinions:** - Judge Lumpkin authored the opinion affirming the judgments. - Judge Lewis concurred in part but dissented on the affirmation of Count 1, arguing that Roundtree's single act of moving should not subject him to multiple punishments under the law. The court's ruling underscores the importance of establishing clear legal standards for crimes and how multiple offenses are treated under similar circumstances.

S-2009-944

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.