Oklahoma Constitution

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

F-2003-1241

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1241

F 2003-1084

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1084

F-2004-1065

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1065, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible oral sodomy, and exhibiting pornography to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case was tried in a district court where the appellant was found guilty on several charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. During the trial, there were issues related to expert testimony, jury instructions, and statements made by the prosecutor that the appellant argued denied him a fair trial. One problematic aspect involved a child welfare worker who said that the victim was truthful, which the court found to be inappropriate. Additionally, the trial court didn't give an important jury instruction that the appellant requested regarding inconsistent statements made by the victim, which could have helped his defense. The prosecutor also made statements that could have influenced the jury unfairly, such as referring to the appellant as a monster. Because of these and other errors combined, the court concluded that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. As a result, the court ordered a new trial to ensure justice was served.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1065

F-2004-871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.

Continue ReadingF-2004-871

C-2004-1018

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1018, Eric Poe appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Poe to withdraw his plea due to newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that Poe was aware of the evidence before entering his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1018

F-2004-666

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.

Continue ReadingF-2004-666

F-2004-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.

Continue ReadingF-2004-82

F-2004-198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2004-198

F-2003-772

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-772, Amy Marie Flippence appealed her conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some charges but reversed one conviction for possession of a precursor and also reversed the child endangerment convictions, ordering them to be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2003-772

F-2003-1252

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1252

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196

F-2003-747

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.

Continue ReadingF-2003-747

F-2003-673

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.

Continue ReadingF-2003-673

F-2001-1224

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1224

F-2002-1351

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1351

F 2002-1259

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1259, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree, robbery with imitation firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented, stating that eleven life sentences shocked the court's conscience but eight did not.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1259

F-2002-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-718, Veronica Coronado appealed her conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Veronica was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and was sentenced to ten years in prison with a fine of $25,000. After reviewing the case closely, the court found an important problem with how the police searched Veronica. The judges stated that her rights were violated because the search did not follow the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution. According to the Constitution, people should not be subjected to unreasonable searches. The judges referred to an important case, Terry v. Ohio, which explains that police can only search someone if they have good reasons to believe that the person is dangerous. In Veronica's case, the officer who searched her did not have specific reasons to believe she was armed or dangerous. The search was done just as a normal procedure. Also, after the officer looked and determined she was not carrying a weapon, the officer had no right to take anything from her without a warrant, which is a legal document allowing police to search. Therefore, since the search was not done the right way, any evidence found during that search should not have been used against her in court. Because of these issues, the judges decided that Veronica should not have been convicted and ordered that her case be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2002-718

F 2002-1041

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1041, Carlos Gomez Modesto appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine and Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming Count 2. One judge dissented. The case started when Modesto was found guilty in an earlier trial of trafficking both methamphetamine and cocaine. The jury decided his punishment for methamphetamine should be ten years and a fine of $50,000, and for cocaine, ten years and a fine of $25,000. However, during sentencing, the judge changed the punishment for methamphetamine to just four years, allowing both counts to run at the same time. Modesto raised several issues during his appeal, challenging the fairness of the trial. He claimed that: 1. The trial court didn't properly handle his request to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which is when a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. 2. He argued that having two convictions seemed unfair, like getting punished twice for the same wrongdoing. 3. He believed that the evidence presented was not enough to support his convictions. 4. Modesto complained about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, suggesting they were harmful and unfair. 5. He pointed out that some decisions made by the trial court regarding evidence were wrong, which affected his right to a fair trial. After looking carefully at all the facts and arguments, the court agreed with Modesto on some points. They found that his two convictions did violate the rule against double punishment, so they decided to reverse the conviction for methamphetamine and instruct the lower court to dismiss that charge. However, they determined there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction for cocaine and decided to affirm that part. The court also recognized that the prosecutor's comparison of Modesto to a notorious criminal was inappropriate, but they concluded it wasn’t enough to change the trial's outcome. Lastly, although there were some mistakes in handling evidence, they decided those were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial. In summary, the court's final ruling was that Modesto's conviction for trafficking cocaine would stand, while the conviction for methamphetamine was reversed and dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1041

F-2002-548

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-548, Brian Wheatley Fire appealed his conviction for seven counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand his case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Brian Wheatley Fire was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County of multiple counts of a serious crime. The jury recommended he serve twenty years in prison for each count, and the judge ordered the sentences to be served one after the other, meaning he would spend many years in prison. After getting convicted, Brian Wheatley Fire raised several issues, called propositions of error, which he believed showed he did not get a fair trial. These were a set of complaints about how the trial went and how evidence was presented. The court looked at the arguments made by Brian's side. One important issue was that a social worker and a school counselor said they believed the child involved was telling the truth, which was a problem. These statements could influence how the jury viewed the witness's honesty. The law says that it is up to the jury to decide if someone is telling the truth, and when someone who is not a trial expert vouches for a witness's truthfulness, it can lead to unfairness in the trial. Another issue was related to what happened during questioning. The prosecutor brought up that Brian, after being arrested, didn't speak to police. This should not have happened because it could make people think less of him for not speaking up right away. The law protects people from being judged negatively for choosing to stay silent after being arrested. Brian's silence was used against him repeatedly in questions by the prosecutor and was mentioned again in final remarks. The court found that these two problems together made it impossible for Brian to have a fair trial. They believed that the errors were serious enough to reverse the guilty decision and send the case back for a new trial where these mistakes wouldn't happen again. In conclusion, Brian Wheatley Fire's conviction was overturned, and his case was sent back for a new trial because the errors during his first trial compromised his right to a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2002-548

C-2003-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-858, Esther Servin appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea based on the interests of justice. One judge dissented. Servin had pled guilty to two counts of Child Neglect, which means she was charged with not taking care of her child. A judge sentenced her to a long time in prison—37 years for one count and 10 years for the other. This punishment would mean she had to serve those two sentences one after the other, making a total of 47 years. After the sentencing, Servin tried to take back her guilty plea because she thought she didn’t understand what was happening during her trial. Her request was denied at first, but later, the court allowed her to appeal. In her appeal, Servin said two main things: First, she believed she didn’t enter her guilty plea in a way that was fair and understood. Second, she thought her lawyer did not help her well enough. The court looked at all the information, including the questions asked in court and the answers Servin gave. They concluded that it was right to let her withdraw her plea because it would be fair to do so. The dissenting judge disagreed. This judge believed that Servin’s plea was valid and that everything in court was handled well. The dissenting judge thought the sentence, even though it was long, should be kept as is because Servin had made her choices and understood her situation at the time. In summary, the court allowed Servin to withdraw her guilty plea based on fairness, while one judge felt the original plea should stand.

Continue ReadingC-2003-858

F-2002-808

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-808, Milton Veran Williams appealed his conviction for distribution and possession of crack cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a place for selling drugs were reversed and dismissed, but his conviction for distribution was affirmed with a reduced fine. One judge dissented, believing the entry into Williams' home was justified under exigent circumstances.

Continue ReadingF-2002-808

F 2001-1497

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1497, Michael Keith Brock appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for one count but affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented. Michael Brock was found guilty after a jury trial on several counts including manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking illegal drugs. The court sentenced him to a total of 40 years in prison and fines totaling $185,000. He appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding the legality of his search and seizure, his treatment in court, and the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The court reviewed several arguments from Brock. He claimed that the search was unreasonable and violated his rights, and he argued that he should not have been brought before the jury in jail clothes. He also contended that the affidavit for the search warrant did not give enough reason for the police to search him and that the search of a person not named in the warrant was illegal. The court found that Brock did not properly object to many of the issues he raised during the trial. It ruled that the search and seizure were valid and did not violate his rights. They determined that wearing jail clothing did not prejudice him during his trial. While the court agreed that one of the charges—possession of a precursor substance—was incorrectly charged and reversed that conviction, they upheld the remaining convictions. Ultimately, the decision led to the reversal of one count against Michael Brock while affirming the rest of his convictions.

Continue ReadingF 2001-1497

F 2002-1339

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1339

F-2001-1028

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1028, Terry Wayne Jennings appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Terry Wayne Jennings was found guilty by a jury in Kiowa County. The jury recommended he be sentenced to eighteen years in prison, and the judge also added a fine of $25,000, even though the jury did not suggest it. Jennings appealed his sentence, raising several issues. One of the main points in his appeal was about the search warrant used to collect evidence against him. Jennings argued that the warrant was based on a weak affidavit, which is a written statement used to get permission from a judge to search a place. He claimed that his rights were violated because this affidavit did not provide enough information to believe there was a good reason to search his property. The court reviewed the details of how the warrant was issued and the information given to the judge who approved it. They said that in deciding whether there was probable cause for a search, the judge needed to believe there was a fair chance that the information was true. Important details like whether the informing person was credible or if their information offered any independent confirmation were necessary. In this case, the specific informant's information was not well-supported. The court noted that there was no past history of the informant giving reliable information to the police. They compared this case to a previous case where a similar situation led to the suppression of evidence. After looking carefully at the affidavit, the court felt there was not enough solid information for the judge who issued the warrant to conclude that there were true grounds for the search. As a result, the court decided that Jennings’ conviction was based on evidence that should not have been allowed, reversing his conviction and ordering that the case be dismissed. In conclusion, the decision from the court meant that Jennings was no longer considered guilty based on how the evidence was collected. The court stressed that following proper legal procedures is important to protect everyone's rights, especially in criminal cases.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1028