In OCCA case No. F-2013-1073, George H. Pinkney appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the presence of a minor, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for the first count to five years but upheld other convictions. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.